Talk:The Beatles/Archive 5

message: George Harrison is looking surprisingly sexy in that group shot at the top of the page. Rowr. (Momus 17:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, if you say so. We've been talking about changing the pic anyway, but a better free image hasn't come up yet. --kingboyk 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: To each their own. :) EVula 18:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps too sexy. 

message: I have corrected the statements on the authorship of "Yesterday," which was written by both Lennon and McCartney (not McCartney alone) as per the original 1965 sheet music, and its claimed status as the "most-covered song in the history of recorded music," an honor which is held by "White Christmas," by Irving Berlin. I believe the original writer may have wanted to state that only McCartney's voice alone is heard on the recording. 66.108.4.183 21:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Yesterday"

message: It seems to me that it's inappropriate to have a picture of John Lennon in 1968 (mid-career) coupled with the section entitled "Formation and the Early Years".  Does someone have a picture better suited for that area?  (Ngoah89 00:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, I like it there. All four of The Beatles' pictures are kind of "defined" and I don't see that they are supposed to be in sync with the article itself. By the way, under Influences and Music am I the only who thinks Ringo looks like Allen Covert?TommyBoy76 01:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That bloke is bald!--Crestville 10:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The other 3 pictures in the article are perfectly in sync with the content.  I think the pictures do look great as they are, just a little misleading.  I was confused enough that I looked up that picture just to make sure that John Lennon didn't look like that in the beginning of his career. (Ngoah89 16:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hey, that's just one guy's opinion. If anyone else has one, it can be discussed. Yeah, bald, I know. But pretend he had hair...ehh?? :)  TommyBoy76 03:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation & The early years picture 

message: When looking up the animated series The Beatles, I couldn't find the slightest bit on any of the Beatles pages. Shouldn't there be SOME mention, even in passing? At least a link to the entry for the show. CFLeon 23:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have any good information, then get writing! Please stick a "The Beatles" template (open "edit this page" at the top of this page to see the format) on the talk page and make a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Log. Have fun! LessHeard vanU 10:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I had forgotten about it. It was done by an American TV company - the accents were Liverpoolish but a lot of the idioms were typical "How the yanks think we talk like (Dick Van Dyke / Bert)" - and it looked pretty cheap. I only ever saw it in the early days of Channel Four - when it first went 24 hour /Night Network - and it was okay. It would be interesting as an indication of how popular the group was, but it has no real significance beyond that (IMO).LessHeard vanU 10:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised by the number of hits I got when I Googled for it. The most comprehensive site I found is http://www.beatlefans.com/cartoons.htm , "plot" details and songs for each episode. I'm still not certain if it is worth its own article - it may be good for merging into another? LessHeard vanU 11:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best as a standalone article I would think. Could live in :Category:Tributes to The Beatles, a new category I created for tributes, parodies and other such guff. --kingboyk 11:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask CFLeon if they fancy writing it.LessHeard vanU 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beatles Cartoons 

message: I was quite surprised to find that the majority of this article was devoted to tribute bands. As I understood it, "Beatlemania" was the term coined to describe the psychological frenzy evidenced in the early days of the band, as they established themselves as a cultural phenomena. It may be that the tribute band text be split out of the "Beatlemania" article, and moved to :Category:Tributes to The Beatles, as mentioned by Kingboyk above, and the article devoted to the fans reactions?LessHeard vanU 11:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The real Beatlemania content would ideally live in the History article/section I think, and the rest either zapped or split out. --kingboyk 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatlemania 

message: Kirchherr is wrongly credited for "the moptop". I don't know how accurate the credit is for the collarless suits. Is anyone SURE of the suit design? Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not CERTAIN, but I believe that it was Epstien who (post Hamburg) put them into suits. I don't know who tailored/chose the collarless style.LessHeard vanU 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Astrid Kirchherr]]

message: Since the group split over 35 years ago - not to mention that two in the list are now dead - it makes no sense to have a list of "current members". I can't see how to change this because it's done in some cryptic way, but maybe someone who knows how to can change the text to something more appropriate? (Comment by User:86.142.110.210 22:51 02 June 2006)
:Good point. Is there an appropriate term for "those remaining at bands demise"? I will have a quick look at other bands pages and see if there is anything worth nicking using. LessHeard vanU 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look indicates that the term members apply to the ultimate individuals, and past members for those in previous lineups. I will amend accordingly. LessHeard vanU 12:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that my attempts to change the heading results in the entire caption and listing being "lost". It will have to wait until somebody works out how to alter it without losing it. LessHeard vanU 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - you can't just edit an infobox in the article. It will require some hunting through the tech pages to see how to do it. - DavidWBrooks 13:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can can put the Fab Four under, just, Members followed by the years (19XX-19XX) that they played together. And put Pete and Stu under Past Members followed by the years and parenthesis. Or put the bold titles as whatever and do the same thing with the parenthesis. Or we can do that to one and not the other. Or any other weird combination of both (Tommy mumbles on and on about something....) and the worst part is, she turned out to be a he! --TommyBoy76 01:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The infobox gets screwed up when the above revision is made.  We need an infobox for defunct musical groups. Steelbeard1 01:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look on a couple of articles regarding now defunct bands of note (The Byrds etc.) and they followed the format of simply noting "Members" and "Previous members". Infoboxes need not have too much detail, since the main body of text should supply that.LessHeard vanU 09:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you tested this infobox style? If so, did all information transfer correctly? LessHeard vanU 12:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a somewhat different format - it won't carry over all the existing information. - DavidWBrooks 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Members? 

message: Just asking before I edit, but what is the relevance of the Myspace page that is linked?  Obviously it isn't the ACTUAL band, and it doesn't add anything to the article. --0zymandias 04:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As well it should be! ---Charles 05:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myspace? 

message: blow it up, get a better version, or get a new picture, or I will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.99.161 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 6 June 2006.
more pictures!--
:Please remember that larger images add to server strain and page loading times. Copyright is another important consideration. You will find more information on Wikipedia:Images. -- Alias Flood 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the main picture is too small 

message: why beatles?
150.101.101.74 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's all there in the History of the Beatles Article, and probably in this one too.--Crestville 11:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE NOTE; User:150.101.101.74 's talk page is full of requests to stop vandalising. I suggest ignoring this editor.LessHeard vanU 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nice name. 

message: I couldn't stand seeing the discography section empty, so I've filled it in with a very short summary of the original UK albums, and a few more that were released since 1970.  It might be trimmed further, but I don't like seeing empty sections with nothing in them except "main article" - it kind of violates summary style.  Morwen - Talk 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this pisses me off too. The main problem is I see it is that seeing anything even partially incomplete, especially in an article like this, will drive certain editors into an editing frenzy which overloads the article. We've already experienced this in the past with the history section. Sigh... Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography  

message: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_Songbook#Classification_-_TOP_40
i did this tremendous work only for my own pleasure :-). Stephan KŒNIG 81.246.221.129 23:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Do I understand correctly that you were including album tracks, and stating the highest chart position from the album? Also, I note that you are using "Radio London" as the source for the UK positions; is this the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), since there was no Radio London in the 60's? I wouldn't mind nicking... er, having this translated and used in this Project if possible.LessHeard vanU 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly it is Wonderful Radio London?  However, one of the paper magazines charts from this time are generally preferred these days.  Morwen - Talk 20:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was the, or any, pirate radio ship then any "chart" is meaningless, since payola was rife and dj's would further inflate returns of favoured artists. I think that the NME and Melody Maker charts are considered the most legit for that period. However, I should be interested if M. Koenig chose to respond. To Morwen, were you able to translate? I am usually only able to get the gist of written French, and am aware that my understandings can be incorrect.LessHeard vanU 21:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French-speaking wikipedia 

message: Could someone add dates next to the labels in the infobox (like in Kylie Minogue and Mariah Carey)? Thank you. CG 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of labels 

message: What about him? The lads toured as his back-up band on a tour of Scotland, I believe. Will check. Hope it´s not too trivi.... (Don´t say that word ... ouch!)
http://www.johnnygentle.co.uk/
Put him in. Who played drums with them, though? Problem with McCartney asking Pete Best to join in August, when they played with Gentle in May. Hmmmm.....
Got him! Tommy Moore, who went back to work in a bottling factory ´cos his girlfriend told him to.. (Doh!)
Just looked: Tommy Moore is not listed in The Beatles line-ups! Poor bloke; he has been dropped into the bin of unknowns... I would think that he does not believe that he had a trivial part to play in The Beatles, but he seems to be the only one who hasn´t written a book about it... andreasegde 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Johnny Gentle and Tommy Moore?