Talk:Beatlemania

message: I don't know whether the lyrics 'British Beatlemania' in the song We Didn't Start the Fire by Billy Joel are worth mentioning in this article. I haven't added it, I'd rather get some opinions first.
i.e. the line "The term later became the name of various tribute groups dedicated to singing the songs of The Beatles. These groups have had John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr impersonators." I don't agree that this necessitates a citation; it's very common knowledge, and would not require a citation even by the rigorous standards of academic writing. The Beatlemania tribute bands performed all over, and even had a healthy television ad campaign promoting the tours. Having to cite that line would be akin to having to cite a statement that the Beatles themselves toured as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.112.116 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This article deserves a better title: "Beatles Tribute Bands", or something in that vein. "Beatlemania (groups)" is too vague - it could refer to groups which play music in the style of the Beatles, or were contemporaries of the Beatles (see Merseybeat). 217.34.39.123 08:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: This page should be moved to Beatlemania, which is now just a redirect to The Beatles. It's basically unsearchable now. The same article should discuss briefly the beatlemania phenomenon in a little more depth. -R. fiend 3 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)
: Done. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to [[Beatlemania]]

message: Could someone incorperate the fact that girls at beatles concerts would regualrly piss themselves and the people who owned the venues would have to clean it off of the seats. Not only is it very true, it is also very, very funny.--Crestville 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that "Shout! The Story of the Beatles" refers to the occurrence - I suppose there are other references in other publications, too. It isn't an unusual event at "boy band" concerts of today and the recent past, but it was first remarked upon in relation to The Beatles. I still believe that it would need to be a learned article to counter any accusation of being salacious.LessHeard vanU 21:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't understand those last few words, but that was a "no" wasn't it?--Crestville 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no. It was "yes, but keep it in context". ps. Salacious is a great word, even the sound of it is a bit pervy! LessHeard vanU 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little titbit 

message: Should this article be a stub? Just from reading it once and admittantly not knowing alot about The Beatles myself, I can casually see here that there is not very much information on the phenominon. Personally I would like some information regarding:
*how it started (what led to Ed Sullivan and after?)
*what happened to The Beatles personally (as mentioned above, they were scared and 'retrated')
*more information on mobs, eg. what was the biggest number of people to swarm The Beatles? What were the early incidences of them being chased? What happened when/if they got caught by the fans? and info on the more famous incidents of mob activities.
*What the deal was with the constant squealing at concerts? (There is a term for this, I beleive, but I only read it once and don't know if its real)
You know... stuff like that. I think this article could be much more interesting and as it stands today, should it be a stub article, until more information can be added? Gohst 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: It seems to me that only some of the crud in the last section should even be here. Certainly a summary of record sales as a whole should be mentioned but not in so much depth. Should some of it be carted off to The Beatles discography, or just deleted? (this comment was added by User:207.62.186.233 20:15 11 July 2006)
:Please note, an anonymous contributor using this IP address has had requests to cease vandalising in the previous few months.LessHeard vanU 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the discography. It's available elsewhere. andreasegde 20:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split this article? 

message: Isn't "The Beatlemania era" these days often seen, in an historical context, as a period in the artistic development of the band?  Perhaps the article should talk about the albums that they recorded in that period, the musical style that was prevelant etc  Spebudmak 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Beatlemania", as a phenomena, was something that was outside of the control of the band, and even impacted upon the group. Whilst enjoying the benefits of the adulation the group were also frustrated that their live concerts and appearances were not being appreciated for the content. This led them to stop gigging and concentrate on studio recording. Thus it is the outside influence on the band, rather than the other way round, that helped promote their artistic development. Also, since it was so prevelent, the band could spend time not playing or releasing records knowing that there would be an audience waiting to buy when they did. Lastly, the cultural impact of Beatlemania transcended the group and even artists in different fields could find that they engendered more attention just by adopting Beatlesque references. While the band was the fulcrum and origin of Beatlemania they were not the directors or even the sole benificiaries of it. There was a lot more to it than just screaming girls fainting at airports. LessHeard vanU 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatlemania as an era 

message: While the term is credited to a promoter, I've heard the story it was by a Canadian journalist (whose name I can't recall), which led to an album (the white album?) being released (uniquely) here as Beatlemania. True?  TREKphiler hit me ♠  14:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag down a source

message: Should Beatlemania  really be called a portmanteau when it simply can be analysed as a compound? It's been a while since I read word formation theory but the way I see it the word Beatlemania clearly consists of two separate morphemes and not just one like motel. --
83.179.25.167 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portmanteau 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Beatlemania 1960s.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Substituted at 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beatlemania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007204834/http://www.andilothian.com/downloads/AndiTayAM.mp3 to http://www.andilothian.com/downloads/AndiTayAM.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Beatlemania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526094345/http://www.televideos.com/barryhood.htm to http://www.televideos.com/barryhood.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't understand why we need 3 articles about the band's popularity 1963-66. Beatlemania in the United Kingdom and The Beatles in the United States contain basically all the info that is at Beatlemania. The first two are even formatted like "Part 1" and "Part 2" - the coverage on "UK" ends at 1963 whereas "US" picks up immediately afterward. These should be merged. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Hey, User:JG66, how much longer are you going to keep adding to this article, which is turning into an encyclopedia by itself! (OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration) You've increased it by more than 25% since you started a couple weeks ago; I'm not sure I've ever seen such an extended barrage of consecutive (non-trivial) edits to a single article by a single editor in all my wiki-years.  It's tough to keep up! One of your summaries mentions plans to split some off into other articles - what's that about?  - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, what's the problem? JG66 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, just wondering. When an article is changed a whole lot by one person over days and weeks, it risks becoming a pet project and the editor in question can become very possessive of it - I've encountered that before. That's not a problem here, but you've made so many nonstop changes that nobody else wants to edit an article that might get changed one or two or 10 ways by the next time we sign in. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very large article 

message: This page has several unresolved footnote references:
* Gould (2007).  Maybe this is meant to be "Gould (2008)"?
* Davies (1968).  There's no matching reference for this at all.
* Lewishon (1988). There's Lewishon references from 2002 and 2005, not 1988
* Lewishon (1992). Same as above.
* Emerick & Massey (2005). No matching reference
* Harry (2002). There's a reference for Harry dated 2000, but not 2002. 
There are a couple more. How should these footnotes be corrected? -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . I'll look into it – I think it's come about through someone carrying over text from other articles without bringing over the full source details too. JG66 (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great! Indeed, maybe they're from some other article, or maybe newer editions of the same references are available (with a different date, and different page numbers, prolly), or maybe ... -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing footnote sources 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion