Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 1

message: Template:TheBeatlesArticle - nice work! You realise that's the American cover? :) I'm not complaining, in fact I rather like it because it's different. I'm used to seeing the Brit cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingboyk (talk • contribs)  11:23, 4 March 2006.
:So am I (used to seeing the Brit cover) because, IIRC, that's how the CD's were released, even in the US. I had not seen the original US cover before! I chose it purely because it says "HELP" in biggish letters! That seemed to fit somehow (at 2 AM in the morning, admittedly)... So do we want to do more work on the project, recruit the people that said they were "in" if we got it going, get a few loose ends set up, or should we go straight to marking all the articles we can think of as relevant and announcing in Village Pump? Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the image. It's a good fit, looks great. One caveat: fair use. Might not be! As for the other question - don't know. Whatever you think. Maybe the second, there's no shortage of Beatles fans here, and why do all the work ourselves? --kingboyk 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the category assignation effected by the template needs a rethink. :Category:WikiProject The Beatles should contain articles from the project: and portal: spaces only, I think (see e.g. :Category:WikiProject Business and Economics). I have no problem with categorising in a sub cat such as :Category:WikiProject The Beatles articles. Also, the template would be better if it had a "put on talk page" warning. IIRC there's a way to do that in code, I'll look into later. --kingboyk 18:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cribbed it from another project so it may be not working right. I'm not sure how to from one page, put another page into a category, which is what would be watned I guess... (unless they did it by hand?) The put on talk page warning is a good idea, put it in the noinclude section perhaps... maybe work that into the wording of the template itself (right now it has some wording a bout the associated article... could be clearer I guess)... hey, it was 2 AM! Tried some changes... ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Eek! Kill the fair use image with fire, please. I know of a picture from Commons which is PD, because it was shot by an American government official when they arrived in America. Let's use that instead of fair use. Fair use images are verboten on templates. Johnleemk | Talk 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. Sounds good, let's see it! --kingboyk 19:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I know which one you mean, I think. I just changed it out for that one... It's not very good though. I left the old one in the comments, because I'd almost like to see if whowever owns the license would license it to us... (I know, dreaming) ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's the one. Johnleemk | Talk 19:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one may not be "clean" either... it's UPI. See  (and see Rauls law of copyright cluenessness...) ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh! What now? (The Library of Congress page does say "Note: No copyright found; checked by staff December 2000." however.) Maybe we could find an artist who could do up a portrait of the Beatles, and then get the portrait licenced under something free? Johnleemk | Talk 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno (and the copyright cluenessness is meant to point at me). I'm not an artist. Maybe just not worry about it. UPI may have released it. The LoC doesn't give large images if they think it's copyrighted, and they give a large image of this one... note that the source info in the top of the photo is trimmed off the copy on commons. So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just use :Image:Abbey Road sin Beatles.jpg for now? It's Creative Commons, and it's an iconic image. --kingboyk 21:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess. GO for it. (I should be working on something work related). ++Lar: t/c 21:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Regarding the naughty lady who started all this, I have withdrawn and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzy Parker (Beatles Song). If I did anything wrong, let me know discretely as that's my first AFD closure :). Now we'd better make good and look at where to merge it to. --kingboyk 23:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suzy Parker 

message: (moved from project page)
* Suggestion: Early Lennon/McCartney songs... this article either needs a lot of work, or to go... -- Might I suggest we first of all do a stock take so to speak? i.e. what's our article inventory? This could well be a merger candidate as part of the Suzy Parker thing, in which case let's not put it up for adoption just yet. Yay or nay? Don't worry, I'm sure I can find some obvious adopt-an-article candidates, I've found quite a few bad ones on my travels. --kingboyk 23:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But best pick one that we might not be about to hack to pieces? --kingboyk 23:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh, thought I'd replied. Remembered typing it all in. Perhaps I don't remember closing the window before commiting the save though. Anyway. (from memory)... I agree that an artcle that's not necessarily going to live may not be the best choice. But an article that seems fully done isn't either. Here are a couple of suggestions: George Martin and Brian Epstein. Both need copyediting, reorging, additional headings, and could benefit from more pictures... they are clearly keepers but need work. Some of the songs are the same way. Contrast Yesterday with Strawberry Fields Forever with Please Please Me... not the same level of quality or coverage. To get a comprehensive list of all articles will take time but maybe I need to just bite the bullet and do it. once I have the list of articles itself, editor macros can create the table for me easily enough. Remind me of the primary sources? Beatles category? What else? (duplicate article names don't matter to me)  (actually I'm starting to pull this together, stay tuned)++Lar: t/c 01:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Poor Brian. Doesn't get the credit he deserves. I hope you signed the petition regarding the Hall of Fame! A good source beyond :Category:The Beatles and subcategories is Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:The_Beatles. I've actually done quite a lot of categorisation work, so hopefully the majority of articles are in the category. --kingboyk 01:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Remo Four (The) could perhaps go onto the list. Epstein-managed, worked with George. That said, I'm about to remove the Beatles template as I don't think it's appropriate on that article. --kingboyk 01:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed re the discography. I shamelessly ripped the format for KLF discography --kingboyk 02:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adopt an Article 

message: This is a mighty thin article to have made it to the main  box, I think. If it's a keeper, it may be our candidate for the first article improvement drive? (I better put it on the table: My knowledge of the minutia of The Beatles is thin... I'm in this project partly to learn about creating projects and stuff, and partly because I just like The Beatles and can't believe there wasn't a project already, but I'm not otaku, just an ordinary fan... so I have no idea if it's a keeper or not...) ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his presence is due to - and is probably justified by - his role as engineer on many of the Beatles' biggest selling albums. His name will have been pressed up on tens (hundreds?) of millions of LPs and CDs and people will want to read about him. Certainly it needs big improvement. One would imagine that in all these decades some interesting citable things have been said by or about him :) Looks like he has Grammys too.  --kingboyk 07:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nod. Sounds like a keeper to me. So maybe an article to focus on. Google turns up lots more stuff than what is there now. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Geoff Emerick]] 

message: The fair use image :Image:Beatles 1969.jpg should not be on this page. See the Fair use policy point nine: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace." I'm afraid it needs to be removed, but I'll leave that to a member of the project incase they know of a free replacement image. Raven4x4x 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. There has to be a freebie out there. We'll find it, some day! --kingboyk 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use includes illustration of "the person, product, event, or subject in question". So I'm not sure I agree. The person, product, or event in question is "The Beatles". But I'll not start a revert war about it. That image we were using for a bit is in my view just as questionable as it's UPI. There are more important things to work on so... no worries. ++Lar: t/c 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So I'm not sure I agree. Hi Lar, if I would be you I would ask Kelly Martin or even better Jimbo Wales (see). LOL. Greetings. A girl from Hungary :-) 10:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer but I've recanted, I gave the policy a hard look, and it is what it is. It acknowledges that our usage fits within fair use, but that WP has decided to disallow it anyway for policy/safety reasons. So the image had to go. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough (no pun intended). --kingboyk 17:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header image 

message: If the activity on my watchlist is anything to go by, we're off to a good start. --kingboyk 16:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And - hooray! - The Beatles' Christmas Album has been adopted and showing improvements already. Very good news indeed, and welcome aboard User:Danthemankhan. --kingboyk 05:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3 main Apple articles (Apple Corps, Apple Records, Apple Records discography) showed substantial improvements overnight thanks to new editor User:Bakewell. I've thanked him/her and invited to join the project. --kingboyk 19:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So far so good! 

message: Both John Junkin ("Shake", A Hard Day's Night) and Ivor Cutler ("Magical Mystery Tour") died within hours of each other in the last day or so. :( Grutness...wha? 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, Buster Bloodvessel :( Thanks for the news. --kingboyk 02:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's just occurred to me that actors in Beatles films could go into (and beef up) :Category:The Beatles films. Any objections? --kingboyk 02:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All for it, (as long as someone else is doing the work)! ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I'll do it. --kingboyk 04:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --kingboyk 06:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RIP two Beatle film actors

message: Listed the project at the subject list ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects#Music]]

message: I don't think I'd transclude that on the main project page. It could grow without bound. I think better to just reference the page like we do for the Article Classification section. (unless you think we should transclude THAT?) ++Lar: t/c 02:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you think. Go for it. Not sure it's gonna grow much unless you're planning a deletionist rampage Lar? --kingboyk 03:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly me, could grow if the discussion gets large. Yep. You're right. --kingboyk 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Talk to Splash maybe and get it tagged, or do it yourself (even though it is archived I think adding the note at the bottom (which then puts it in the category, right) is probably "ok" since it's not modifying the outcome, just making a note)?  ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I just went ahead and did it. Splash or whowever can yell at me later if they want. I also changed the articles from transcluded to listed. That might not be right, maybe they should be transcluded there but we should only list the link to the deletion sorting project page instead of transcluding IT? ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Technical point) I've seen it claimed that double transclusion doesn't work too well, but it seemed to be working fine to me. (Review) As for your manouvre (sp.?), no worries! --kingboyk 22:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maneuver in the US, I think, but different in the UK,  has answers... On review, I think I've stuffed it up as the page is transcluded elsewhere and not having the articles transcluded breaks the other uses. I think I'll have to change it back... then just link to it from our project page, because once you deletionist scum get going it will be the biggest part of the whole page... Smile. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcluding the The Beatles - Articles for Deletion section 

message: Some of the items on the WikiProject page look to me more like the sort of things that would be found on a Portal page (Did you know?, Features article/picture, etc). Do we need to bother with them for now, or should they be left until the project's a bit more established? It may be running before we can walk a bit. Grutness...wha? 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're administrative lists, for example which articles do we have which are Featured? Which do we have that are candidates? I'd leave them myself but again I'm not too bothered either way. --kingboyk 03:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, they're admin lists, I think... Again, the project page came into being (with all that stuff there) because of subst'ing of the master template which has everything anyone has ever thought was useful. Steve and I commented out a lot of stuff we don't yet (or ever?) need. I'm down with commenting that stuff out too, if we're not ready to start tracking stuff like that, or have no interest or whatever... go for it. My view is don't delete it though, as we may want it back again later. You'll know we are really cooking with gas if/when the master template has our article classification stuff in it! ++Lar: t/c 06:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project page looks more like a portal

message: It was decided by an IP edit some time ago  that Mr Richard Starkey MBE is actually one "Richard Parkin" and that this 'fact' should be inserted into the first line of what ought to be one of our flagship articles. Unfortunately, Google doesn't agree . I removed the reference last night but it was restored again while I was in bed. I've also tried to debunk the theory on the Talk:Ringo Starr. I don't want to be heavy handed and then turn out to be wrong, nor do I want to be the only person watching for and reverting  this change, so I'd appreciate some response on the talk page and the adding of the article to watchlists (it's been a recent vandal magnet too I might add).
Whilst I own a copy of the Anthology book I don't have it with me, so I can't check what Ringo said. I think my Talk summary is likely a fair picture of what happened though. Even if I'm wrong and he was actually born Richard Parkin, I'd like some confirmation that that doesn't belong as a simple bracketed insertion without comment in the first line of our article. --kingboyk 22:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, he's a Parkin, though his family has been Starkeys for a couple of generations - and he was definitely christened as a Starkey. According to RS himself in Anthology: "My real name is Parkin, not Starkey. My granddad was named Johnny Parkin. When my grandfather's mother remarried, which was pretty shocking in those days, she married a Starkey - so my grandfather changed his name to Starkey too.". Grutness...wha? 23:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he was Christened a Starkey, that's what he is (legally and technically, imho)! :-) Unless we're going to research the family tree of Ringo to check that in, say, 1472, his great grandfather to the power of 10 didn't change his name too? Maybe he's not a Parkin at all, maybe he's a Shakespeare or a Burke? :) Where does it end? Birth name, stage name, that's all we need. The "Parkin" thing should go into a "Trivia" section I think. Let's talk about it there, this was more of a watchlist/incident heads up. --kingboyk 23:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In an article about him, it probably is appropriate to cite that quote about Parkin (his Shakespearean/Burkian ancestry is not the same thing). It probably doesn't belong in the lead sentence though so I'm adding the article to my watchlist. I support your block of a n hour, BTW. ++Lar: t/c 00:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lar, I agree. --kingboyk 00:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Richard Starkey 

message: I know we don't want the template to get bloated and unwieldy, but I was wondering whether we should add Neil Aspinall and Mal Evans to it. Any thoughts? Grutness...wha? 22:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, by the way Stephen, if you are interested in how Aspinall and Apple are operating today, you should talk to biographer Matovina (he is easily contacted via his website). He deals with them all the time. Pretty interesting, too. ZincOrbie 19:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure am. What's the URL? --kingboyk 02:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.mindspring.com/~crimson3/ ZincOrbie 03:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template additions?

message: It's a bit early yet (still setting the project up, really) but I think at some point we ought to do some or all of the following:
*Drop brief "newsletters" onto the user talk pages of signed up participants
*Ensure that every project article is on at least one watchlist (which, if we can expand membership, might mean say 10 articles each)
*Invite editors to adopt or cleanup a new article periodically, perhaps every month or every 3 months
*Have occasional collaborative cleanup efforts, where we collectively turn a bad article into a featured candidate.
--kingboyk 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the newsletter idea is great - a short list of things that are in severe need of attention (or currently in need), plus an update as to what has been achieved. --Mal 03:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintaining editor interest 

message: I've dropped a line to the schools wikiproject in the hope that they'll either write or colloborate with us on redlinked schools which have Beatle alumni. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. --kingboyk 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools 

message: I don't mean to gloat ;) but I've just saved a Beatles related article. I discovered that some time last year somebody had blanked The Fireman, somebody else had then tagged it as empty, and a (naughty!) admin speedy deleted it, obviously without checking the page history! Since that's an invalid speedy deletion, I moved the new incumbent (a Charlie Chaplin film) to a new slot, and restored the article. --kingboyk 11:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And he saves! 

message: Boys (song) is a dab page, but every incoming link is about the Beatles song. Normal convention is that the dab page would be moved and the Beatles song take the slot. However, there's no seperate article for that song, it's a link to Please Please Me. Do we leave it as is, do we want dab all links for Boys to Please Please Me, or do we redirect Boys (song) to Please Please Me and insert a Template:Redirect? --kingboyk 12:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave as is would be my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boys (song)]] 

message: I just added an article on the Carl Lindstrom Company which founded Parlophone and where would Parlophone be today without The Beatles? Steelbeard1 17:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, and I didn't know that Parlophone had (oh the shock! :)) Germanic roots! Lar, 'Parlophone's "₤" trademark is not the British pound sign, it's a Germanic "L" for Lindstrom' might be a Did You Know candidate? --kingboyk 17:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, just noticed this. Can we fatten up the article at all (with valid content I mean). DYKs typically should be a bit bigger, this one is not much bigger than a stub... I'll gladly (or anyone else can) nom it as soon as it's fattened but the clock is ticking, it's no longer eligible 120 hours after the article was created... ++Lar: t/c 22:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did my bit to fatten up the article a little bit and I encourage anyone else with knowledge of the early history of the Carl Lindstrom Company to add their info. Steelbeard1 02:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominated... Hopefully it gets picked as that often does fatten up articles nicely. Do you have a logo for the company that could be added? Any external sites or references for the info? Maybe an ? Any of those would help (the DYK admins look for verifiable facts and references...) ... if this gets picked it will be the first one by me of someone else's article.++Lar: t/c 03:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an eBay listing showing a colour German Parlophon 78 label which looks like it has the definitive Lindstrom logo.  Just click on the adjacent footnote,  Unfortunately, the centre hole obscures the bottom of the logo.  How is it? Steelbeard1 13:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, and fair use too I'd guess. --kingboyk 13:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking closely at the logo, the bottom has the initials A.G. widely spaced to accomodate the centre hole.  If someone familiar with Adobe Photoshop or similar software can fill in the hole, we could use the logo for the article. Steelbeard1 15:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things... First I think the label might better illustrate the Parlophone article (is that in our aegis too?) and second, I think the label I found is cooler, as the L symbol stands out better. Some editor took the link to it out of the article for some reason, but I added it back in... Third, not sure that modifying images leaves them still fair-use-able... I understood that you had to leave things as is. But see Raul's laws  (#4) as I am no copyright expert ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: followed up on the article page, let's keep the convo there. It's a great image! ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Carl Lindstrom Company]]

message: I've created a rough draft of a new userbox. I've dropped it onto Mal and Lar's user pages to get a reaction. If it's disliked, it can be quietly dropped. If it's liked, I'll pop it onto the user pages of the other signed up participants. So, comments here please. --kingboyk 11:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems nice. I think it better to announce (perhaps in our upcoming newsletter?) or place on user talk pages, than to modify someone's userbox page directly though, some might find that invasive (I didn't mind because you were testing, etc but others might). I don't have one for the other projects I'm in because my userboxes appear on the front page where the project membership boxes are already visible (and much bigger)... ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like it, and you saved me the bother of cutting and pasting etc too! :) Stick it up somewhere so that others can use it. --Mal 14:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well when we're happy I'll plonk it onto signed up member's user pages and add it to the project main page. --kingboyk 14:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I hadn't seen Lar's message. Well, whatever, it can be announced somewhere :) I don't see any problem with placing it on people's pages with an edit summary including "please feel to free to remove it if you don't like it", that's wiki, but I see where Lar's coming from. --kingboyk 14:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to my userbox.  Thanks. Steelbeard1 15:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it into the template section of the project page, grouped with the project membership message box. While I was there I expanded the Album infobox section a bit with things I learned updating Revolución De Amor and Sueños Líquidos... note that MAYBE some of our albums have the wrong colors? Most use orange but I thought I saw a yellow one. Could be misremembering. ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Userbox

message: see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Michigan for a task box. Maybe we should crib the idea?  which then leads to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Michigan/to_do by transclusion. I am not sure I'd do it exactly that way (having two levels of template and one being talk and one not) but the idea is sound... If other projects do it in ways you like, please post their info too so we can compare! I just like the way it looks though, so maybe the style is good for the newsletter we're talking about doing?... (as it happens, I live in Michigan so ran into this) ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh! Look at Talk:Japan. Those clever folks at WikiProject Japan seem to include their todo list as a hidden div in their Project template, with a click-to-show link! I like :) --kingboyk 09:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Tis done. I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/To_do and put it into a hidden div in our talk page template, which is tres cool if you ask me. I've rounded up the stray tasks I could find, and added an extra step to Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#How_to_grade. Now, if you other folks could add articles which need cleaning or a photo as you find em, tidy the formatting, and add anything that I've missed. With a new userbox and a todo list to talk about, plus reports on what we've been doing, we have plenty of material for our first newsletter. That's a job for one of you guys! :) --kingboyk 14:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS One other job - putting the articles we've already assessed as stubs or as in need of cleaning onto the todo list. --kingboyk 15:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tasklist ideas 

message: Take a look at the Formula One wikiproject, and you'll see the following page: Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Formula_One/Related_Pages
I haven't looked yet to see how its done, but perhaps it could be handy for this project too. --Mal 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How it works is just by making a page full of links to "related pages" to the project. Then you can click on "Related changes" in the toolbox on the left to see any recent edits to any of the pages listed. ;-) AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 07:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe could be created at the same time as the category tables are populated in the article classification page? Or, perhaps some sort of tool could build the list? It's a nice idea, certainly, and could be very useful. --kingboyk 09:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes page? 

message: We did it, we made DYK! See Talk:Carl Lindstrom Company. Yaay us!!! Nice work everyone, way to collaborate. Here's hoping this is just the start! ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone asked me (indirectly) why I think this is a big deal... Here's why. Every time an article makes DYK, it gets a large number of eyes looking at it. Those eyes often improve and expand it quite nicely. Which is good for the article and good for the project. They also sometimes look at the talk page. When they do that, they may realise they want to get involved in the project. That's even better for the project. So, that's why I think a DYK win is a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean me (not sure if you do) I questioned the importance of failed requests not successful ones :) But maybe I'm just being paranoid and it was somebody else. --kingboyk 17:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was somebody else I think. However... Even faileds get a little publicity. Further, if we agree that succeeding in a DYK is good for the project, then it follows that we want to have more successes. Two ways to do that: nominate more at the same success rate, or improve success rates. Tracking fails is a way to improve success rates. Which is why I think it's  worth doing when I remmeber. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the right venue, but I think DYK is flawed. Instead of choosing mature articles, they insist on new articles which haven't gone through verification and peer scrutiny yet. And they reject articles because they're too short, but most new articles are just that, and the shortest need the most work! </rant> --kingboyk 17:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nod.... No it's not the right venue but ya, you have a point. OTOH, there already is a featured article and changing the focus to featuring articles thought good might be difficult. On the THIRD hand, I sort of like the idea of featuring stuff selected as being goodness but from WPs NEWEST... it shows we can create good stuff fast. ++Lar: t/c 17:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carl Lindstrom Company]] makes DYK! 

message: Pursuant to previous discussion regarding archiving what we have achieved, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Log. --kingboyk 19:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Log]] 

message: Please add Paul McCartney to your watchlists. It seems that article has been a bit of a battle ground from pro and anti seal hunt POV warriors. I've seriously trimmed the section and hopefully removed POV. Whilst I accept that the section could be expanded a little, an article on an ex-Beatle is not the place to debate the pros and cons of seal hunting and - given all that McCartney has done in his life - it's only a small chapter and should be treated as such. As far as I'm concerned, the article should say nothing more controversial than McCartney opposes seal hunting, he went to Canada, x y and z happened (without every last detail), and reaction was (whatever the reaction was). I'll be reverting anything crufty, POV or verbose (erm... verbose... I'll wrap this comment up now). --kingboyk 21:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please watchlist [[Paul McCartney]] 

message: There are two articles, Baby You're a Rich Man and Baby, You're a Rich Man (differing in a comma). There should be only one. But which? cddb suggests the one without the comma... anyone have a definite answer? I slapped a mergetag on them both. (I found these trying to debug what was "eating commas sometimes but not always""... well, as it turns out, nothing was, there are two versions!!! see User:Lar/Sandbox2 ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know and will have to look into it. In the meantime, Baby, You're a Rich Man seems to be the lesser of the two articles, so when we know which slot we want to use, I'll do a history merge and let that one sit hidden in the page history or speedy delete it as a duplicate. (Gracenote is CDDB is user submitted?) Anyway... hmm... my personal records (where I catalogued my collection, backed by encyclopedias, sleeve notes etc) have no comma; so does Amazon. I'll be bold and go with that, it's easily reversible now I have the magic buttons :) --kingboyk 12:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the as published title has a comma is the way to decide what to keep, in my view, not which one is meatier. Meatier is to decide what text to keep. But I see you did all that, left a redirect and we are cool. I added a note that some versions of the title exist with the comma... thanks for sorting that. It was 1 AM when I ran into it, I was done thinking about it. Aside: I dunno what is up with GraceNote, I wasn't watching when it changed from CDDB to Gracenote... I liked it better before, much easier to search stuff... ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby You're a Rich Man 

message: What is up with using "*" as the lexical (sort order) for a cat that's in a cat? ... see :Category:Beatles song stubs... I asked on the category page too. It screws up my tablegen semi-badly. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It puts the most important article (usually the one that a  template would point to) at the top of the list. Unfortunately it wasn't designed with your script in mind :) There is a possible solution, which is changing asteriskes to space e.g.  . I think that might actually be the preferred way to do it. --kingboyk 12:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think to handle it I need an exception list or something. I can also handle * as a special case (I do that for space already I think) when deciding what sortkey to use, and not take it if I find it, instead take the name itself. I put the remaining loose ends on the talk Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Article Classification ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The category contains <nowiki>[[Category:The Beatles songs|*]]</nowiki>