Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 2

message: This talk page badly needs an archive. --andreasegde 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Did you know?... Macca used to kill frogs with a big stick and call them "Johnny Rebs". He had a collection of 10 or 11 down by the local beck. "Many Years From Now" book... --andreasegde 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did you know?

message: These need sorting out (which I will do later if nobody gets there first). A great deal of his post Beatles article appears to be under the major heading of "Drugs" (no comment) instead of seperate headings.LessHeard vanU 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pipped you at the post, me old chum. I want that pint of golden nectar from Kingboyk. Maybe he'll buy a round... --andreasegde 18:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (with huge apologies to Janis Joplin!)LessHeard vanU 19:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Headings and sub-Headings

message: I will put a  on anything that needs one. Anything that does not have a citation will - after a reasonable amount of time - be taken out.
We are here to put references in, but if we don't there is no point putting anything in at all. This article has to be higher than a B class, because it deserves it. --andreasegde 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick summary on the subject of including references would be very useful. --Zakko 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, then, we'll have to add an entry in the project template and create a simple howto page. Now who can I ask to do the work? (preferably somebody of a nick other than kingboyk!) --kingboyk 09:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put a very simple explanation on a couple of talk pages that need citations, and I added one or two citations to point editors in the right direction. See: Ringo Starr. --andreasegde 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, If anyone complains that there are too many citations on this page, I will scream blue murder... (lol) :) --andreasegde 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: * Not quite sure about expanding the article on Jane Asher. She's already got one, and there's not much to say about her.
* "Songwriting" should be near the beginning, and not at the end.
* "Popular music career"? Why is that in there?
* "Other relationships". It only deals with John Lennon. --andreasegde 17:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits and expansion

message: This is very weird for me, but I have to disagree with Kingboyk. We have the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s sections in chronological order. I think the songwriting section should be chronological, because he started writing songs before The Beatles.
I totally agree that being thematic is a nice way of writing, but it would mean writing/rearranging the whole thing all over again. (I am open to offers, BTW...) --andreasegde 20:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the other option is to simply merge the songwriting text into the relevant decades. I only have as it a seperate section because it was already seperate. Also, some of the stuff which is in sections - such as family life - will need to be at least mentioned in the chronology, to give context. --kingboyk 20:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronologically, or thematically

message: According to this article, Mary Had a Little Lamb (Paul McCartney song) was a double A with "Hi Hi Hi". However, according to that article, Mary... was followed by Hi Hi Hi b/w C Moon. So which is it? --kingboyk 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're very right. Sorry - my bad. --andreasegde 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mary Had a Little Lamb (Paul McCartney song)]]

message: This article will be chronological, because it is too long to be thematic. There will be no legacy section, because Macca is not dead yet. It is a 'B' article - which is disgraceful - and it should be (at least) a GA. The workers are united, and we will not stand for any interference from the management concerning conditions.
Our aims are clear: To raise the standard of this article to be free of 'cruft' (edits by fans) and to make it concise and readable. If the management disagrees, they then have the right to block this Union representative whenever they feel the need to do so.
It has recently failed a GA review because of management interference, and this is frowned upon by the Union (with regard to section, B Article - clause 49/WindowsXP). --Alf Emsley - Union Rep. 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful son, sometimes Management have their uses; also the Union Dictat specifies that all workers (including managers) will be free from oppressive tyranny - whether they like it or not! --The Eternal Spinning Soul of Leon Trotsky 15:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally right, but I have to start from the beginning again and sort it all out. Bugger.... Simplicity, combined with style, is a virtue. --andreasegde 15:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many to expand on this article the GA failer says? Its nearly 80kb already! I have to say on record that I think this article is better than some GAs - though there'll be lots of content forking occuring. LuciferMorgan 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too true - maybe we have to find a way of describing certain events in Macca's career that are not repeated in the forks. It's forking problem, I admit. --andreasegde 18:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If certain events ain't in the content forks we could possibly create the actual forks - I wouldn't wish to cut out interesting info off Wikipedia totally (providing it's encyclopaedic). LuciferMorgan 23:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that has to be the way ahead for an article like this. Macca's life could fill a volume of books, we need to cover it in under 100k (preferably under 80k). --kingboyk 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Structure. Are we sticking with what we have, or we gonna go chronological? (decade by decade, not one subheading per every little event please :))) --kingboyk 11:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Union of Beatles' Workers