Talk:Beatles for Sale

message: This article is currently up for Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GAR

message: In a 2 to 0 decision, this article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;
::(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).
LuciferMorgan 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for GA Delisting 

message: The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:
Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them.  The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question.  I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken.  In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking.  It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics.  If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so.  The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 03:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics Links 

message: ...as described by some as mainly Lennon's work...
By whom?
Both Lennon and McCartney have referred to this song as completely co-written.
I think their accounts carry slightly more weight than those of some unnamed someone's.
--84.208.224.234 (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby's In Black 

message: The article states the first three tracks "are sometimes referred to as the "Lennon Trilogy," I have never once heard this before. Who sometimes refers to them as this? Is there a citation needed? Thanks! Airproofing (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lennon Trilogy? 

message: Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the  template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
* http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Adq63tr29kl4x
--CactusBot (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011 

message: I'm wondering why the original song "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" does not have its own subsection.  The previous edit includes a passage which does not belong in the overview section and is more appropriate for the song's subsection if there is one.  Can someone put it in? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" 

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) 22:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatles RfC 

message: As of Aug 11, 2014, the section "Overview begins as follows:
"The Beatles began their first studio session for Beatles for Sale on 8 June 1964, only seven days after their last session for A Hard Day's Night."
I have no idea where this date and assertion comes from. Almost all sources I have seen place the Beatles on a world tour starting on June 4th and not returning until June 30th.
Furthermore, Ian McDonald, Mark Lewisohn, and "Recording the Beatles" all list the first recording session for this album (Baby's in Black) taking place on August 11, 1964.  Additionally this same Wikipedia article supports the Aug. 11 date in a later section (Writing and recording -- Background)
I do not feel fluent enough in adding accuracy tags to articles to do so, but I feel at best the article ought to be corrected by a better Beatles scholar than myself, and at the least a "disputed" tag ought to be inserted at this sentence -- wish I had the confidence to do so myself.
UPDATE: I've taught myself how to use the "dubious" tag and applied it -- hope I've done it all correctly.
UPDATE 2: Versions of this article prior to Sept 2, 2008 would appear to describe a timeframe that is roughly correct (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beatles_for_Sale&oldid=234558898). On Sept 2, the article was updated with a claim of "six days" by an unregistered user without any explanatory comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beatles_for_Sale&oldid=235734113)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.179.142 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Piriczki (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start date - significant error 

message: The title announcing this non-existent medley did appear only on a later pressings of this album, due to an intervention of Venice Music, being an interested party (see Notes here). But actually nor Little Richard, neither The Beatles did never perform this so-called medley, them did perform "Kansas City". 
There is the chronology of recordings by Little Richard and their releases:
September 13, 1955: "Kansas City", at least two takes. This first version was very close to the original song by Leiber & Stoller, but was first released only in 1971 (take 2 of this version, which runs 2:16).
November 29, 1955: "Kansas City", at least eight takes. This second version, very different from the first one (in particular, including a refrain starting by the words "Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey") was first released in March 1959 (it runs 2:37).
May 9, 1956: "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", at least eight takes. This song, having not to do with "Kansas City" (except a title and verse similar to the refrain of "Kansas City" 2nd version) was released in January 1958.
So none of versions of "Kansas City", both recorded by Little Richard in autumn 1955, can be a medley with "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey", recorded a half of year later.
January 1958: Single Specialty 624 "Good Golly Miss Molly" backed by "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" is released.
March 1959: Album "The Fabulous Little Richard" (Specialty LP-2104) including "Kansas City" (2nd version) is released.
April 1959: Single Specialty 664 "Kansas City" (same 2nd version) is released.
No "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" on title of song, no "medley", the title is simply "Kansas City".
However, as "Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey" was released more than a year before "Kansas City", it was considered as preceding "Kansas City". That "inverse chronology", together with a similarity of the word "Hey" repeated four times in both songs, created a mistake.
This obvious mistake, being created accidentally or intentionally, should be fixed.
RocknRollArchivist (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The medley "Kansas City / Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey!" was never performed nor by Little Richard, neither by The Beatles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Beatles for Sale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110514003907/http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Adq63tr29kl4x to http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Adq63tr29kl4x
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 09:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: In Tim Riley's Tell Me Why (p. 118), he writes: "If Magical Mystery Tour demonstrates the limits of rock psychedelia, the country excursion of Beatles for Sale says something about how the Beatles view rock's antecedents." Ian MacDonald, in Revolution in the Head (2005 edn, p. 129), says of "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party": "this is the group's most overt exercise in country-and-western on an album dominated by the idiom." I'm thinking that these statements are sufficient to have country music added to the genre field – anyone disagree? JG66 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New genre: country music 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Beatles for Sale. 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/20131109225255/http://www.richieunterberger.com/turnover.html to http://www.richieunterberger.com/turnover.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avclub.com/articles/chuck-klosterman-repeats-the-beatles%2C32560/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.music-story.com/the-beatles
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) 18:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified