Talk:The Beatles/Archive 10

message: Anonymous user at 71.76.219.92 deleted the entire "instrumentation" section. While the article definitely is too long, I think the instrumentation material is worthwhile.  How about if we put the old "instrumentation" section into a separate article and beef it up, discussing the significance of each instrument (e.g., John's J160E on "I Feel Fine", Paul's Rickenbacker bass on "Paperback Writer", and so on)? Raymond Arritt 02:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; revert it. 71.76.219.92 is a Led Zeppelin fan who is vandalizing this page. She/he does not leave any kind of note on the discussion page to verify what he/she has done, and doesn´t sign in. Block him/her. --andreasegde 19:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrumentation

message: I've removed a template saying "this article is too long", as it was ugly and most of us are aware of the problem anyway (see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/The Beatles history)
I'm just posting here to let everyone who edits the article know. --kingboyk 18:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: When The Beatles were finally knocked off the #1 spot in the USA it was by The Supremes. Consequently a meeting was set up with the four boys from Liverpool and the three girls from Detroit. The Beatles apparently fully expected The Supremes to strip off to their underwear and start smoking joints with them. However The Supremes remainly fully clothed and with their knees pressed firmly together. None of them had ever taken drugs in their life. One of The Beatles asked Florence Ballard how they they got that great sound on 'Baby Love' and she replied confidently that it was the guy at the front with that machine with all the buttons. They were both super-groups but had nothing whatever to say to each other. They did not meet again. SmokeyTheFatCat 09:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Beatles weren´t very good at meeting people: Elvis, Lennon and Bardot, The Queen. The first Dylan meeting went well, but probably because they were all off their heads... --andreasegde 09:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They seemed to get on well with Muhammed Ali (but I suppose they had to - or else) and rumour has it John Lennon got on well with Yoko Ono when they met. The others didn't, mind you.--Crestville 13:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beatles meet The Supremes 

message: The colour piccy of George has gone on the missing list. Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, it must be none other than the "George-Harrison-Picture-thieves"! Those bastards make a living by shanghi-ing photos of the Quiet Beatle (1943-2001) and then selling them on the Korean black market. Of course, there's no real call for pictures of "My Sweet Lord" star Harrison, so the thieving bastards are very hungry, angry and resentful. Experts believe Michael Abraham worked with the group for a time. They really need to branch out. Idiots.--Crestville 15:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put another one in there from the rooftop concert, which is a good-un because he´s not on the on the rooftop shot below. Question: Why has the photo of George gone and the other three are still there? (Whoops... I think I´ve just shot myself in the foot.) --andreasegde 15:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: George's Photo

message: Can someone please sort them out? They're more confused than a rectum that doesn't know where its elbow is, and they look messy. Can someone put them together? BTW, if anyone wants to know what "notes and references" should really look like, take a ganders at the KLF page - it'll knock yer socks off. --andreasegde 12:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes and References

message: I've replaced the suggestion that MMT was broadcast only in Black and White, thus ruining The Beatles plans for the film - Ringo claimed this in the Anthology - ISTR it was broadcast twice over the xmas period of 1967; once on BBC1 in B+W then on BBC2 in colour.  In fact this was pretty much irrelevent as in December 1967 practically nobody in the UK had a colour receiver as the colour service had only started in July 1967, only on a single channel and, ISTR only in the London area.  It seems pretty silly to make a TV film that relies so much on colour in that situation.
Apepper 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magical Mystery Tour

message: If anyone wants to brighten up their day, I suggest you watch this:  It's fab. --andreasegde 06:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it just goes to show eh? I didn't think Oasis were that good! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laughter

message: On the Official studio albums, why isn't Magical mystery Tour there? It's like one of the best albums, and besides, it came out in 1967. Why isn't it on that list? --Imax80 19:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it wasn't an official album until the CD era.  The album was compiled in the USA by Capitol Records.  It was a double EP of two 45 rpm records in the UK. Steelbeard1 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't Magical Mystery Tour on the list 

message: First it was the piccy's, now it's the album covers gone missing! Am I becoming paranoid or are we under attack from a sinister, covert anti-Beatles terrorist group? Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Keepsleeping appears to have removed them as alleged copyright violation. - DavidWBrooks 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a copyright violation? Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use fanatics seem to think so, average Wikipedians perhaps not (as evidenced by this being standard practice). Have your say at e.g. Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Personally I think it's harder to defend their use in this article than in the standalone discography; I think they're essential in the latter. --kingboyk 15:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the images of the album cover is used solely in an article in respect of the album, then it constitutes fair use and is allowed (especially since fair use is invoked when there is no "free" alternative - and there is no alternative to the official cover). If the images are used outside of articles specifically relating to the subject then they can be removed. I suggest asking User:Keepsleeping why the images are being removed.LessHeard vanU 15:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Criterion #8 of the fair use criteria is that images used "must contribute significantly to the article". It's perfectly acceptable to use an image of the album cover in that album's article, or even in a section of the main article that discusses that album — in that case, the image is being used as an illustration of text that specifically discusses what's in the image. In this case, though, the images were being used in a discography list, when exactly the same information could be conveyed without the images, which makes the use of the images decorative and unnecessary. I promise you I'm not a member of any sinister, covert, anti-Beatles terrorist group :) --keepsleeping  slack off! 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has gone all over my head - I'm just a thick "Mickey". Is there anything that you are allowed to do without convening a Mothers Meeting? Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is how I have become the editor I am today, by tripping over Admins whilst blundering through articles..... hmmmm, perhaps you may want to find your own way!LessHeard vanU 16:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and it looks like I'll need me  B.A.! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just silly.  Has anyone in the whole wide world actually complained about using the album cover images in an article about the band ("It's not about the album!  It's about the band so you can't use it!")?  I somehow doubt it.  They are among the most familiar images in the world, and some - like With the Beatles, Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road - have been parodied, referred to, used, misused, and re-created approximately 12 million times. In the last month alone. This is trying to create a problem where there is none. Carlo 20:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent point; some examples of record covers by The Beatles became icons in their own right, seperate from the music contained therein. As such they should be fair use in an article/section that discusses the impact the band made/make in popular culture. The particular references to Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper are well made, even today the images are used as a cultural reference point. If the images are re-instated into the article, though, these reasons must be made clear, and of course the images will need to be in the appropriate (part of the) section.LessHeard vanU 20:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now it's the album covers!

message: I think the song samples should really be only in the individual album/song articles, not here.  I did, however, add the 1963 samples here just to de-orphan them so they won't be deleted.  I'll move them into the album articles when I can, and remove them from here.  --LDC 19:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samples 

message: I added the vital stats because I didn't find any on the page.  Now it's deleted, with the explanation that it's "not really necessary."  I'd take issue with that, mainly because it's part of the basic information in any article mentioning person(s) affiliated with the article, and structurally this info should be in the article preamble.  Now you say the info is already in the article; good, then find it for me.  Then make it stand out.
I see the active band years is already mentioned in the box. BTW I will no longer take part in here.  Mdoc7 17:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Band member stats

message: The Beatles are not Emo. Please somebody change that...
::In future, just click "edit this page" and correct it. Power to the people! yandman 06:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on, Yandman!  Unfortunately the page is semi-protected so our anon friend could not make that edit without help ;-) Leeborkman 07:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Errr.... Moderate possibilites available to certain persons! No, just doesn't sound right. Oh well. yandman 07:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism in this Article

message: Is the name correct? Should it be "The Beatles" or plain right "Beatles"? My suspicion is Apple Records holds a trademark right over "Beatles" not "The Beatles" suggesting the former to be the correct name. As it is Rolling Stones and not The Rolling Stones - the former definitely incorrect redirects to the last one (it should be the other way round imho). Gebruiker:Dedalus 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. "The Beatles" is a registered trademark, and was first used as such on 8th November 1963, Application For Trademark Registration Claim Number:187978. Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TBP. Please discuss "The" there, so the rest of us can quietly ignore it :) It's an old debate, the project settled on "The Beatles", end of story as far as most of us are concerned :) --kingboyk 13:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct name 

message: Hi, there's been a discussion recently on the musical artist infobox talk page about the use of logos in the infobox.  The discussion is ranging from whether support for logos in the infobox can be enhanced to whether this sort of thing even qualifies under WP's Fair Use policy at all.   Since this is one of the most prominent articles using a logo in the infobox, and since it has its own well-established WikiProject, I'd like to invite interested parties to join the discussion.  Xtifr tälk 20:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using logo in infobox 

message: I'm not really happy with how The Beatles Anthology is presented in this article. The moment the various elements ("Free As A Bird" and "Real Love", the albums, the documentary series) are mixed up in various sections in the article. The two singles - probably the most notable element of the project - are given least prominence. I'm going to try and fix this by moving some of the info from the Anthology documentary section within "On film" into the "history" section. I'm just giving some indictation of my intentions, so I don't end up getting reverted just for making major edits to a popular article. :) --Nick RTalk 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done that - I incorporated some of the content from History of The Beatles. In order to clarify the distinction between the Anthology CDs and the Anthology documentaries, I had to move the image of the collage cover away from the "film" section: it's more associated with the CDs than the documentaries, and should be placed next to the statement about Klaus Voormann. Unfortunately that doesn't look very good, since the text is squashed between that picture and that of Ringo. But the text is better now, IMO. --Nick RTalk 17:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beatles Anthology 

message: I just stumbled onto this pic, and think maybe it should be slotted into the History section somewhere?:
:Image:Kleinsigning.jpg --kingboyk 12:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That must be the cheesiest photo on Wikipedia... We've got to have it! yandman 13:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed... where's George?! --kingboyk 13:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Macca standing on him?LessHeard vanU 13:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A great picture 

message: The Beatles are without a doubt the most acclaimed group in the history of popular music, and quite possibly the most written about. Volumes could be written on the band and, indeed, Mark Lewisohn is currently working on such an endeavour. Therefore, this article has to be highly selective. I have to question, then, why this article has (had) three sections about artists who influenced The Beatles (parts of "Changes in their music", "Early influences", "Later influences"), and not a single paragraph on the influence of the group. Is an exhaustive list of the influences The Beatles consumed really amongst the most important things we can say about the group? Is it not the case that for every influence on The Beatles they influenced 100 or more other acts?
This is typical of the problems which beset articles on popular culture: fans of other artists feel they have to big up "their" artiste.
I'm going to be bold and majorly trim this stuff. The original sections will be pasted in below. If anybody wants to fork it out to another article that's their prerogative. --kingboyk 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed and refactored the material into a "Musical evolution" section. It's littered with  tags (many of the statements I know to be true or citable, but that doesn't alter the reality that they'll need citations if we're to get this back to FA). I've not fully nailed the flow of the section: it still needs major refactoring for logical or chronological flow. I feel that a section on "musical evolution" versus 3 sections full of crap is an improvement though. --kingboyk 17:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences on and the influence of The Beatles