Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 3

message: As I am not sexist, I have to disagree about not including Linda McCartney in Wings at the start of the 70s. Macca started Wings with her, and he had married her before then. The first Solo/and later, Wings was just her and Him, in Cavendish Avenue, so why is she ignored? So what if she was a shit keyboard player? She was in the duo/band. (Yoko reference again...)
I understand that his marriages can be included somewhere else, but we should put her in. I'm sure Macca would agree. Lennon would definitely have agreed (= Yoko).
P.S. I have put his early songwriting before The Beatles, because it belongs there. --andreasegde 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All web sources need the date they were last accessed, so if the link becomes dead it can possibly be retrieved using the Wayback Machine. LuciferMorgan 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, LuciferMorgan. I have often seen that, but I never fully understood why it was there. I will go through the citations and put them in. Thanks again. --andreasegde 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wayback Machine is on www.archive.org BTW, so if any links become dead please go there. LuciferMorgan 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, of course, Linda has to be covered as a full member of Wings in the Wings section, and a brief mention of her involvement in Wings should be in the Linda section too. We don't judge her value as a member of the band, we just report it. (Although we can certainly report what critics have to say if anything juicy is found). --kingboyk 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linda

message: A quote from the 1980's section;
"In 1981, McCartney disbanded Wings, and set about recording his next album with Beatles producer George Martin. The first result, 1982's Tug of War, was a major success. "Ebony and Ivory", recorded with soul legend Stevie Wonder, was a hit, and the album also included his eulogy to Lennon, "Here Today"."
To say an album was "a major success" isn't good enough, as it needs factual info to support - such info for "Tug of War" would be its Billboard chart position, its UK chart position, and critiques from music reviewers/historians (or McCartney/Beatles biographers). The same thing applies to the single "Ebony and Ivory" - you'll need factual info, such as chart positions, reviews, etc. LuciferMorgan 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good points. I've nothing that goes beyond the Wings Period at present. See what I can get hold of though. Thanks Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AMG will have info on Billboard positions, so you could inline cite them from there. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hits? Proof?

message: Another quote, this time from "Classical music";
"In 1991, McCartney made his first complete foray into classical music, collaborating with Carl Davis to compose the quasi-autobiographical Liverpool Oratorio. This was received well in general, although many commented that the music lacked the complexity normally associated with the genre".
# The 2nd sentence is weasly, as you can't say "This was received well in general". To say it was generally well received you'll need 3 cites I'd say to back up the "generally bit" - it may be an idea to quote some comments here to back up the comments.
# The 2nd part of the sentence saying "the music lacked the complexity" etc. will need roughly 3 cites if one feels "many" commented upon this.
Make sure the comments you find are from reliable sources, and the more well known the sources the better. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your're right, LuciferMorgan, it's POV. I'll remove it when I get back. --andreasegde 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it. (I just couldn't stop myself...) Good work spotting it. --andreasegde 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well received? Proof?

message: This is the first time that I have felt genuinely excited about working on a page, because it is a shining example of co-operation. Are we gonna get an FA? If it goes on like this, it's a foregone conclusion. (Now - where's that other regal bloke....? :) --andreasegde 16:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have the Anthology CDs, I will work on that. There are lots of bits of information on there that are not repeated anywhere else. --andreasegde 16:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is on a roll...

message: I'm really not sure about its position, and if it should be so long. Any comments? --andreasegde 16:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the position is wrong. It should also be cleaned up as there are some useless points. --jackdrew 18:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just cut it out. (It's mentioned elsewhere). --andreasegde 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason why that song should be mentioned in any great detail here. We should save the detail for the song's article. So, yes, agree once again :) --kingboyk 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yesterday

message: Read this article  - I think it's info could be useful in the subsection dealing with McCartney's business affairs. LuciferMorgan 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I will put it in. I'm frustrated at the moment, because I don't have the time... but I will have. --andreasegde 02:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For possible inclusion...

message: I wouldn't worry about it not flowing so freely at the moment, because we're only collecting information. We can polish it later. Let's do the basics first. --andreasegde 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my intent too, and it's how I work on big articles like this (see Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty, both are a mess like this, all 3 will be FA some day!). I think we fill it up with all the referenced info we can find, and then we trim out the excessive detail, beef up the related articles, and polish the prose. In other words, we lay the foundations first and do the decorating last :) --kingboyk 11:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see you back. I noticed a few external citations in the article yesterday, so I 'in-lined' them. I now have to go through all the in-line citations and put dates in in, as I didn't do it before. (Bugger...) --andreasegde 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perfection

message: It's a singles chart database: Every hit.com I linked it a few times, because if you link the page you found, it doesn't work. You have to type in the title every time, but it's better to choose the year of release, and then click search. --andreasegde 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, couldn't we have choosen someone with a shorter career? lol :) --andreasegde 17:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be another 30 or 40 years of it still to come yet! --kingboyk 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice site

message: I took out the film section, and put 'Broad Street' in the 1980s, but I think I've shot myself in the foot, because there are lots of little references here and there that relate Him to film. It's a puzzler... Put them all together, or leave them? Hmmm... --andreasegde 08:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. I don't feel that film is a particularly important medium to McCartney; it was more important to Ringo and George. Let's leave it, we can always rearrange later. --kingboyk 10:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Film

message: I've wikilinked this in several articles. It gets enough mentions, I think, to be worthy of an article and is notable at the place where Paul and Linda first met. --kingboyk 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link next to it to show where it was, and lots of people played there. It is worthy of an article, but it's hard to find much out. (I tried...)--andreasegde 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bag o'Nails]]

message: * It has a brief mention of Jane Asher and then it's all Linda. It looks like a snub for Jane.
* I am quite sure I put in all the citations two weeks or so ago. Where did they all go?
* If we have to put in page numbers with in-line citations the references list will be longer than the article. (Now 121 and counting...)I'll do it, if it's defintitely a 'must-do', but... --andreasegde 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jane Asher

message: To avoid edit conflicts, I'm gonna put the lead here so we can tweak it. The lead should be a summary of Macca's career and should contain nothing which isn't in the body. It'll also be the basis of the text used when this article gets onto the front page :) --kingboyk 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a bloody great idea.--andreasegde 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this is such a long article, I think we should be looking at at least 3 or 4 substantial paragraphs of lead. --kingboyk 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: When we have a stable lead, I'll build a list in that talk section of the facts in the lead. We check they're mentioned in the body and strike em off the list. --kingboyk 12:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead (intro)

message: Moved into Todo list so it doesn't get archived. --kingboyk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead (edit here)

message: Who has put all that stuff in the George section? It's POV, anti-Macca, not cited at all, and makes me blood boil... It's not one of us, I'm sure. I'm gonna cut it, but someone have a look at it first. --andreasegde 12:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Danger, Will Robinson...

message: I've added a load of jobs to the todo list near the top of the page. If you see anything else that needs doing please add it there, and we can use the todo list as our management centre for getting this article to FA. --kingboyk 13:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To-do list

message: I've found that most of the Macca and Beatles albums already have weblinks to reviews (AMG, Rolling Stone etc) and these make for really rich pickings. A little critical commentary from professionals is always a good thing, so get following those external links folks! (Be careful with reference reuse, as I've already referenced a few of the reviews). --kingboyk 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. LuciferMorgan 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, in the "to do" I found an online critical review of the 1984 McCartney film by Roger Ebert, a notable film critic who works for the Chicago-Sun Times. This is worth using briefly in this article, and used in more detail in the film's own page. Please use this review! Thanks. LuciferMorgan 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll use it, an Ebert review can't be refused! Thanks man. --kingboyk 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but I have to say that I love this page, and all its occupants... (I am slightly drunk...) --andreasegde 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations and citations for critical opinion

message: I'll see if I can take care of the "Notes" and "References" section. I've been busy of late so haven't been able to review this article much. Sorry everyone. LuciferMorgan 11:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've noticed a major problem with the books that have been inline cited. You're supposed to inline cite specific page numbers, so where are they? When I did minor work on Iron Maiden I cited specific page numbers, all using the same book. This is how you're supposed to do it with books, not like this article has done. Just citing the book is too general. Whoever has this published material will have to trace all the page numbers should they want this article as an FA - Otherwise we can all wave bye bye to FA. LuciferMorgan 11:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about that for now, I think Andreas is gonna take care of it (and has already started citing page numbers). If you could fix up the references from the other media that would be great - formatting as we discussed, and checking that each source is acceptable. --kingboyk 11:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once Andreas takes care of the page numbers, I can work on the book media - it'll look much better also when I can go to work on it (when the page numbers are thrown in). LuciferMorgan 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone send me the accepted style of formatting page numbers, books etc? Name, title, :? commas, date (date) etc. etc,.. and so on. I'll copy it over to winword, so I won't get it wrong. Uhh, I do so love pedantry. :) --andreasegde 16:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does Note 26 go? There's no weblink, no book info, no nothing. LuciferMorgan 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That happens when text gets shifted about and what was the first use of the reference isn't any more. If the text looks like it's in the right place now, just find the full reference and move it to the first usage. If the text is likely to be moved again don't worry about it for now. --kingboyk 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes and References

message: Can we just clear up a chronological issue - when exactly did Wings end? Do we have any citeable source for the exact date? Piecing the bits together from our articles I get this chronology:
* Back to the Egg, last Wings album, released June 1979
* Was the last Wings single "Getting Closer" (Aug 79), "Wonderful Christmastime" (Nov 79), or something else?
* Dec 1979 - Concerts for the People of Kampuchea, last Wings show.
* Jan 1980, McCartney busted as he enters Japan to begin a Wings tour. Tour cancelled.
* McCartney II released in May 1980 whilst Wings are in limbo (any refs/citations for Wings being in limbo?)
* So, what happened after this, if anything? We're saying Wings split in '81, which may well be true, but we don't explain the missing months. --kingboyk 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology

message: Have you got other books Andreas, e.g. Philip Norman, Peter Brown, Mark Lewisohn? We oughtn't rely too much on just one author or we'll be writing "Barry Miles condensed McCartney bio". Of course I don't mean to stop you working through the books one at a time as you are already, in a nice and thorough fashion, I just wondered how extensive your library is :) --kingboyk 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got Spitz, Barry Miles (photos fell out a long time ago), Philip Norman (which has totally fallen to bits) Fenton Bresler (only Lennon), Hunter Davies, all the Anthology DVDs, and have access to a few more (such as The Unknown Paul McCartney) due to a Beatles fanatic that I know. (He’s a nice bloke really…) I will try and intersperse the others in, but there are only four or five that are really good, or so I believe. Maybe we could put a list of the good ones together for the talk page or Beatles category page? I would like to buy some more, if there are new ones about…. --andreasegde 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All my books are packed away, and I'm out of touch as to newer books, but I have (from memory): P Norman, pretty good; I have Love Me Do (one of the real oldies); the offial Paul bio (I think that's Miles?); Lewisohn's Recording Sessions and Chronicles (the first of which is essential); Revolution in the Head (very good for song analysis); George's I Me Mine; stacks of Lennon books... anyrode, your library is pretty damned good and will be plenty. I might be able to get Peter Brown from the local library (read it years ago, pretty good) and of course there's plenty on the web now too. --kingboyk 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks great though! --kingboyk 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Miles' book only deals with Macca and The Beatles, but it does look at them from Macca's perspective, which is why I started using that one. I think there are about 25-30 references in it. After The Beatles is harder to get. Anyway - what do you mean "it looks great"? Have you got the first volume? Bugger...--andreasegde 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I read the interview with Lewisohn and it looks like it will be an exciting work! --kingboyk 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Books

message: I have just put some semblance into the order. I could accept the deaths of Lennon and Harrison being together somewhere further down, but you can't have The Beatles intro before The Quarrymen. --andreasegde 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we have to do it that way. Each section needs an intro, as far as I know. Isn't that right Mr Morgan? --kingboyk 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, each section does need an intro - it's a major mistake many people make when trying to get things to FA. An intro in a section summarises a section. Ie. "Paul McCartney has been featured in several greatest songs lists" for example, and then you'd elaborate with hard, factual evidence. LuciferMorgan 12:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological

message: The song "Michelle" had a Grammy, but does this count? I know he wrote it, but is it for inclusion here since its a Beatles song? LuciferMorgan 12:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the 17th Grammy Awards, the song (not album) "Band on the Run" won Best Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group. These awards were held on March 1, 1975.  - this link can be used to cite the info. LuciferMorgan 12:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice site. It's now in my favourites list. --andreasegde 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's good for getting Grammy info - we could use it in other Beatles related articles. LuciferMorgan 13:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards

message: If possible please try to avoid resectioning those, I'll be back a little later to finish trying to sort them out. --kingboyk 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't be sectioning anything - I'm the cites man, so hope the links in the "To do" list will help. LuciferMorgan 15:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early years/Beatles sections

message: I think it might make things easier (given that we have a working-version of the lead on the talk page) and neater if we didn't have citations in the lead?
Since everything in the lead must be in the body, we can cite it there.
What do you think? --kingboyk 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it has to. The lead should be a summary of the body, meaning it has to be a duplication. --kingboyk 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ok chill out! LuciferMorgan 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, coincidentally enough, is the other article I'm supposed to be working on for FAC! ;) --kingboyk 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should nominate the article for GAC first (once we're done). LuciferMorgan 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could do, but I'd be inclined to go for a peer review at WP:WPBIO and straight to WP:FAC, since GAC could take weeks and is merely approval from one editor... Anyrode, you can return to editing now I've taken  off :) --kingboyk 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This could get FA status, but it'd need a copyedit. I know Tony would pounce on it at FAC if he felt criterion 1. a. wasn't fulfilled. We just need to wade through the "To do" list. LuciferMorgan 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell yes, it's a long way off. There's huge chunks of basic biographical information missing, and a great deal of amateurish writing remaining. We'll chip away piece by piece, adding in the info and citing it, then polishing for brilliant prose, then PR and optionally GAC. Tony won't be setting his eyes on this for some time to come! :) --kingboyk 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately my writing isn't that good - I hope my links in the "To do" section prove helpful. LuciferMorgan 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: I think between myself and Andreas we've got a reasonable structure now. Do we agree or disagree? --kingboyk 17:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I can't recall ever disagreeing? LuciferMorgan 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh...Music to my ears. --andreasegde 18:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Just a general query Mr Morgan. Actually, if you must know, the disagreements on structure have been between myself and Andreas, we've been quietly tinkering with it day by day but I'm happy with it now. In fact I think it's F-A-B! :) --kingboyk 13:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A certain hair colour? LuciferMorgan 19:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: Another thing which FAC is very hot on is fair use images. If it's not possible to justify "fair use" in the strictest terms, and write a fair use rationale for it, we can't use an image. Copyrighted portraits of third parties used decoratively won't be acceptable, I'm pretty sure about that. Regrettably, then, I've had to zap the photos of Linda, Jane and Heather Mills and have added  tags to the top of this page. --kingboyk 13:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true... they're more concerned about images than the writing quality! LuciferMorgan 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use images

message: I notice the Paul McCartney article now has more inline cites regarding the Quarrymen than the actual Quarrymen main article itself. If any info in the main article is uncited there but cited in the McCartney one, can someone duly add the cites maybe if they have the time? LuciferMorgan 15:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quarrymen

message: Can we all please endeavour (and this is a plea to myself as much as the rest of you) to recycle citations into other articles at the same time? e.g. LuciferM just mentioned the Quarrymen. If we cite a fact about the Quarrymen and the same fact is in that article, cite it there at the same time. That way we'll be improving multiple articles with minimal extra effort and making future work easier. --kingboyk 15:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but as I seem to be the main offender, I have to say that I was going to do that after this article was finished. It will be much easier to do it in one fell swoop later. I don't want to get confused about which page I'm on, and which reference I copied. (Believe me, I find it easy to get confused...) Also, anybody editing related articles can copy the references over themselves. --andreasegde 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair points Andreas. It may be better doing it afterwards. LuciferMorgan 16:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that's fair enough. --kingboyk 16:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Gosh. I think we might hit 300 - I wonder what the record is?! --kingboyk 16:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol my target isn't 200 - that was a mere estimation of when the book cites are given their individual page numbers. Knowing our luck some editors may complain about the article's size. LuciferMorgan 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently just over 100k. After removing HTML comments and trimming excessive detail, but with at the current time some detail and citations still missing, the final figure is gonna be around that mark I'd guess - maybe more. I think we'll have to just wait and see. No point worrying about it just yet. If the article is cruft free we might get away with it, or we might have to start some more child articles, but we won't know until we have something like the finished article (first draft thereof). --kingboyk 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say I like the Refs section coming before Notes. Do they do it in books? Nope. LuciferMorgan 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I thought refs should be first. Do we have example articles to look at? --kingboyk 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish I could think of one, but the way I've always did it is Notes first so people can then look at where the cites came from in the Refs section. LuciferMorgan 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Recycling" citations

message: This is hard to fix as it ranges from source to source -  - this one from July for example estimated it at £10 million.  - Here's another saying she was paid off to keep quiet about their marriage. LuciferMorgan 16:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - Found a source for the prostitute bit. LuciferMorgan 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll get meself a glass of wine shortly, but I have those tabloid articles open in tabs and will add some references tommorow. Some tabloid links are exactly what we need to reflect this very tabloid divorce. I'll keep commentary minimal and let the reader decide. --kingboyk 20:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait and see what the facts are before we comment on it. --andreasegde 21:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divorce Settlement Figure

message: Macca's article on the Norwegian wiki is Featured. Anyone here speak Norwegian? :) I notice that they have a similar structure to what we've come up with (sections for Wings, activism, classical music etc.) --kingboyk 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, I looked at that two days ago. (FA articles, and all that...)--andreasegde 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I normally never do this, but I have to say that it's not anywhere near to the quality of our article, even though it's a Norwegian FA. (Sorry, to all of you Norwegian editors. :) --andreasegde 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually only GA. Having said that, it wouldn't reach GA on our Wikipedia (no offence). LuciferMorgan 21:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's FA but they use the image that we use for GA. Agreed, it wouldn't make FA here but different wikis have different standards. The English and German wikipedias are way ahead of most others, but the others will catch up! There's some wonderful folks over at the Norwegian Wikipedia (see :no:Talk:The KLF) so lay off em alright! :) :) --kingboyk 11:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm merely assessing the articles lol. LuciferMorgan 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which you are doing extremely well. --andreasegde 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norwegian Wikipedia

message: Absolutely spiffing, first rate work Andreas! I'm "dead impressed", hardly found a thing to copyedit :) --kingboyk 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spiffing" - what a nice word. I thank you kindly, Kingboyk. Any chance of a Quarrymen barnstar? Oh well, never mind... --andreasegde 20:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That reminds me, I was going to give Lucifer Morgan a "Rolling Stones barnstar" for his services in getting Beatles articles defeatured ;) hehehe --kingboyk 20:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol what's a "Rolling Stones" barnstar? By the way, I'm such a petty guy I've even put two of the three Beatles GAs up for review too (stone me now!). LuciferMorgan 21:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, I think we should be thankful that LuciferMorgan is with us on this page. It's not a case of "The enemy is inside the walls", but rather, "The enemy is inside the walls, and he's helping us build them back up". More power to...err... that thing between his forearm and upper arm... :) --andreasegde 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although that does conjur up an image of the Trojan horse ;) But, seriously, LuciferM will get a real barnstar from me soon enough but not just yet as we need to keep him motivated :) --kingboyk 11:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks lol. Actually, I'm more of an enemy of GAs/FAs that fail to meet their criteria - I think this Wikiproject needs a true reflection of where it's at, and not some old FAs that don't meet today's criteria. I mean, if you compare the KLF song FAs to the Beatles song FAs, the difference in quality is immediate. What pleases me though is after awhile of nominating Beatles FAs with not a care in the world off the Project, now actually there's two people who're determined to get it going. LuciferMorgan 18:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quarrymen section

message: Before you do too much work on that section Andreas, can I just issue a reminder that because of article size constraints we only want a potted chronology - the very key events with particular emphasis on McCartney's experiences. --kingboyk 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very right. I think that McCartney's personal experiences should be there, with short lines about the main things that happened. Err... which is exactly what Kingboyk said, but in reverse. --andreasegde 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Beatles section

message: I have a disturbing feeling that the length of this article (as Kingboyk has pointed out) will be a problem, and will be commented on. How do we get around that? I am in the middle of The Beatles, but there is still a lot to put in (I am making it as concise as possible, by the way) so what can we do? This is a special case, as Macca has had such a long career, so should we collect all of it, and then fork it? Please ignore this if you think I'm rambling on... :) --andreasegde 05:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As in a thread above, we'll deal with that later I think. Let's get the key material and citations in place, give the resulting text a good copyedit, and see what we're left with. --kingboyk 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length (said the the actress to the Bishop)

message: Sound of fireworks, the crowd goes wild, it's a goal, they think it's all over - it is now, I'd like to thank the academy, mine's a pint, and yes, yes, yes... 200 in-line citations. Our cup overfloweth. --andreasegde 06:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new editor (to this article) did some cleaning, I think. Have you checked they didn't zap any references that should have been kept? --kingboyk 11:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not yet. I looked at the history, and it said some were "not real references". You're better at that than me. --andreasegde 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now 202. Come on 300, we're waiting for yer... --andreasegde 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 200

message: Take your pick between the rags. The Sun says  that Beatrice's birthday is 30 Oct. Hello! says 28 Oct. --kingboyk 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beatrice's birthdate

message: And, on the theme of the divorce, whilst I think we have about the right amount of content now there's no need to skimp on references especially given the controversial nature of the material. Therefore if you find additional articles from different newspapers saying the same things feel free to add extra citations. Just queue 'em up, one ref after the other no spaces between. --kingboyk 12:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should wait until the outcome. One editor once told me that "this is not a magazine", with which I agree. --andreasegde 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't not mention it, but I think we shouldn't add any more material certainly. I agree with the "this is not a magazine" sentiment absolutely, but even a journal or up to date print enyclopedia would have to at least mention the impending divorce. Kinda agreeing with you... Also, some info and citations will probably become redundant at some point and deleted (once the divorce is over and the amounts are finalised) but that doesn't prevent us being thorough with the interrim info :) --kingboyk 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, inserted, thanks. --kingboyk 20:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a purely personal (POV) note, I thought that Lady Mucca was trouble right from the start.--andreasegde 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm seems no wonder everyones fighting Macca's corner, and not hers. LuciferMorgan 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way Andreas, I think Lady Macca was only one woman, and she's no longer with us (Linda R.I.P.). LuciferMorgan 21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lady MUCCA not Macca, as the rags have dubbed her... --andreasegde 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I still think Paul was vulnerable when they hooked up. LuciferMorgan 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the aquiline nose thing. He's a sucker for it. --andreasegde 21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Divorce

message: As you all know, I am adding things to McCartney's Beatles' time, as well as other bits. Any comments? Too much detail - not concise enough? --andreasegde 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unsure really - my Beatles knowledge is minimal (best have Kingboyk tell you when he comes back). I'll see if I have time this weekend to sort out the cites. LuciferMorgan 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - How's the page numbers coming along? LuciferMorgan 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, although I'm only up to the middle of The Beatles. I've put a lot of new stuff in, but the other page numbers aren't a problem. --andreasegde 12:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't take criticisms of text personally mate. You've done an unbelievable job. I'll try to beef up some of the refs and add any which need beefing up to the todo list, but please keep at it you're doing a sterling job. --kingboyk 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I do love doing it, because it has taken preference over my addiction to "Civilisation II". We are doing something that is totally new on Wikipedia. "Lock and load", as they say. --andreasegde 19:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress report

message: Even though it is tough to find newspaper articles that summarize a critical response about McCartney, these references might help in writing it :
* http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/6620
* http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20051024/ai_n15716512
* http://arts.guardian.co.uk/fridayreview/story/0,,1123641,00.html#article_continue ... hints at the split
* http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20010506/ai_n13959915 ... not praising him like the other articles
This quote taken from a New York Times Upfront in 2004 :
Here kingboyk, I don't say remove the critical response section but it is gonna be tough to find material for it.
Lincher 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh... that 'drownedinsound' article is the most biased POV I have read in a long time. Do we really want to include stuff like that? It gets close to libel, in my humble opinion. --andreasegde 15:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, perhaps that will have to be a section for me to work on then. I'm pretty sure there are sources. Macca's a guy who until recently polarised the press isn't he? Anyrode, we can always ditch the idea if it doesn't work. --kingboyk 15:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea to have a critique of Macca, but it will be difficult without straying into POVs. Are there any critiques of Gandhi or Jesus? lol :) --andreasegde 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, NPOV means reporting the rough with the smooth. Since there is a body of opinion that Macca, well, "sucks" (Frog Chorus anyone?) the NPOV thing to do is report that, offset with the (larger) body of opinion that he's a living legend. --kingboyk 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some interesting/revealing quotations in the Miles' book that I'm using at the moment, which hints at Macca's jealousy that Lennon gets all the credit for being the literate one, and Paul being only the "nice, cute Beatle". It's all read-between-the-lines stuff, but it shows his real anger/jealousy that people think he's all "pizza and fairytales" (Lennon). It might be good to angle the piece so that all the critiques are balanced with Macca's views. What say you all, my dear comrades-in-arms? --andreasegde 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. That could make for a really interesting section: for, against, and Macca's own views. I expect we could find some stuff from Lennon taking both positions too. --kingboyk 10:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical response

message: 288 references so far. (Will this madness never end?...hehe :) --andreasegde 15:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's looking cool. One thing, the "last album to date" bit at the end of the 80's section I wanna take out - this fact may change should McCartney get another number one album. Also, I think this is way better than GA right now. I'm gonna nominate it right now, but everyone keep working on the article - if they don't like the fact it's unstable then stuff them. LuciferMorgan 18:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, LuciferMorgan said "stuff them". We are a now an unstoppable team. This has made my day... :)--andreasegde 19:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Responding to the "last number one" bit: the point there is that it was a long time ago. The 80s were quite a successful decade for McCartney, the 90s less so. The 00s saw of course something of a comeback but on the back of a highly acclaimed (I think) world tour. I've no objection to changing how we reflect that (or reflect a different trajectory if I'm wrong) but I wouldn't want to lose all reference to it, as though he's been getting smash hits from the 60s to date (he hasn't). --kingboyk 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is currently unreferenced, having a fact tag. Could we change it to last number one album of the 20th century then? LuciferMorgan 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote it and tagged it with  (I tend to do that when I'm working on a referenced article and haven't got the definitive info to hand). Last of the 20th century is fine, but: I don't like statements that age either. However, is it a problem in this case? It was nearly 20 years ago. --kingboyk 09:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was his last of the 20th century - McCartney will get another number one album, probably after he passes on. LuciferMorgan 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that occurred to me too. He'll probably get a posthumous number one single and/or album whether or not he ever gets to the top spot in his lifetime again. Nonetheless I don't have any problem with describing something that happened ~20 years ago as "last to date". Drummond and Cauty could get back together (1987 debut, 1997 FTM, 2007 ??) but I still describe FTM as their last collab to date. --kingboyk 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 288 References

message: This article is 75k of pure prose. It will probably be asked to be axed downed or split in order to achieve the GA/FA standards don't you think. Lincher 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, but Kingboyk and LuciferMorgan will definitely have. I'm probably to blame though, as I am throwing everything and the 'kitchen sink' in. --andreasegde 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you should probably go easier on the peripheral info about his life - let the readers buy a book :) That said, Lincher, even if Andreas reigns (sp.?) himself in a bit, with such a long career and so many interests this article is likely to trouble 100k whatever we do. We'll review the situation when we're done. We don't want any more forks if we can help it. That's about all I can say at the moment. I'll be coming in with my cutting knife and trimming it down when it's done, and we'll see what we have left. --kingboyk 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I even put his dog 'Martha' in... --andreasegde 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martha My Dear. And wasn't Jet named after an animal too? And don't forget the Land Rover, Helen Wheels :) --kingboyk 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm up to "Making the albums", which is very long and details the writing of songs. I would prefer it if someone else tackled that (songs, albums etc..) because I don't know how much to put in. (Ouch! Sound of ruler on bare knuckles...) --andreasegde 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say pretty much nothing, unless it's career defining (e.g. "scrambled eggs"->"Yesterday", which could get a one sentence mention in the 1960s section). Details about individual songs will have to go into the song articles (or album articles if the song doesn't have one). --kingboyk 18:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Final Fantasy VII is 96kb, and that's an FA. Additionally, if this doesn't pass GA / FA standards, it races past them and smashes straight through their winning post. Size is a poor reason for objection - this has ten times more refs than average FAs / GAs, keeps straight to NPOV ten times more than average FAs / GAs. It's superior in every aspect. LuciferMorgan 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Andreas has done a truly amazing job. But, we do need to keep an eye on size and remember this is a summary piece not a complete history. We've done really well on that aspect so far: The Beatles sections, for example. If we want to write a book we can always do that later ;) (and no GFDL please, I need the money, hehe). --kingboyk 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Anyway, the size is fine considering Macca's career - if we didn't summarise it'd be a 1000Kb! LuciferMorgan 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: is currently blank because I altered the first use (footnote 2) to reference the BBC article (which was a news article and not written by the interviewer). Footnote 3 is citations using the same source (ref name="HardTalk") but which don't appear in the article.
Maybe they appear in the video? (I don't know, I don't have RealMedia). If they do, we'll need to cite the TV programme not the article. If not, we can find other citations. If you can fix it please do, otherwise - don't worry about it - I'll fix it up some time. --kingboyk 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't work it out. Is it two citations together, or one? I'll be blowed if I know... --andreasegde 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Footnote 3 is other uses of footnote 2, but for facts which aren't mentioned in that web article. I fixed up footnote 2 and renamed it "HardTalk"; the other uses became footnote 3 because I couldn't verify them. If you have no idea then please replace them with . (I hope that's clear now cos it doesn't look too clear to me :)). --kingboyk 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote #3

message: I have started to add some bits to McCartney being tough, and they are all in his (and Linda's) own words. Give 'em enough rope.... --andreasegde 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macca is a... in his own words

message: Exactly. I will say no more... :)--andreasegde 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: No explanation needed :) --andreasegde 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my forking of the Indica Gallery section cost you a few ;) --kingboyk 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait until I get the Spitz book out and all the others. 300 or bust... :)) --andreasegde 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah. I don't know much about Fluke (only have 2 singles of theirs) but they were contemporaries of The KLF and part of the British electronic music scene. The guy writing that article has helped with feedback and positive comments on KLF articles and FACs so I returned the favour :) It's a pretty nice article. I think perhaps even better is The Orb which User:Wickethewok has been working on (81 citations). --kingboyk 12:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 297

message: I took out the "Mostsuccessfulartistever" reference, because the original web/book reference had been deleted some time in the past. --andreasegde 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: I know this should be in the 'to do' section but I thought I would point out a few glaring points.
* Photos
* A discography section (to take out all those confusing "was a hit" comments.)--andreasegde 17:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do

message: Where are you all?
We are nearly there. Let's finish the last lap. --andreasegde 05:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phone and internet went down on Thursday. Came back up last night! One of the perils of living in the countryside :) --kingboyk 10:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here - just tied right now. Long story. LuciferMorgan 16:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides anyway, you both seem to be getting on totally fine without me. It's not like I ever made a major contribution anyway. LuciferMorgan 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now, we won't have talk like that. Your contributions are very worthy, Mr LuciferMorgan. We need your eagle-eyes, and your intelligent comments. Do not lose heart. --andreasegde 03:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It's mostly Andreasegde at the moment (still haven't deciphered the anagram!) as I'm working on some off-wiki stuff. I'm still keeping an eye though and will be here to help with the copyediting and the final push towards FAC. --kingboyk 12:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello

message: What about a section on Meditation? There's a whole chapter on the Maharishi. --andreasegde 16:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meditation

message: I've had a good look at the 1990s, and I saw some awards and classical things in there that should be moved, or maybe not. This section needs the steely-eyed glare of LuciferMorgan. --andreasegde 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how you want the article laid out. Awards are mentioned in other sections, but then again there's an "Awards" section. It's a difficult balance indeed. LuciferMorgan 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "we" better. What shall we do? (I have moved one award thing, but there is another reference to classical music that is repeated below...) --andreasegde 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got it. If the award is connected to something specific (like the Family Way) it should be left, but the lifetime award, etc., should be moved down. --andreasegde 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated

message: Should this have a section of its own? He did a few, and not only Rupert and the Frog... and he worked with Geoff Dunbar on a few projects. --andreasegde 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Animated films

message: I am now going to start reading through the Bob Spitz book, but it only deals with The Beatles period. I will take out a lot of Barry Miles' references, and replace them with Spitz, so it evens things out a bit. Everybody happy? --andreasegde 18:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Citations

message: Why is it listed as a good article at the top, and then below as a B article? I'm as confused as a fish in a pint of guinness... --andreasegde 19:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a clown in the GA room passing articles without properly reviewing them. It's very disruptive. It's back as a nominee again, so is now 'B' (FA in my book though lol). LuciferMorgan 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, LuciferMorgan. This is why we need you. --andreasegde 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 'Cocoaguy'. He can't spell. Such is life... --andreasegde 04:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: B, or Good Article?

message: Somebody is definitely going to mention this in the House of Commons. What a scandal - it shouldn't be allowed... --andreasegde 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes just make sure you salvage stuff before I come with my scissors, or better still that you know how to look at old revisions ;) --kingboyk 13:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 340 citations so far

message: Has been deleted because it had no citations. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it... --andreasegde 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird Al Yankovic

message: Dear andreasegde, Wonderful Christmastime needs a quote and ref. "Rockestra" Grammy as well- --andreasegde 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to myself

message: I'm not sure if the chart positions should be in, as they are on the discography page, and they look messy. Anyone for tennis? --andreasegde 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart positions

message: Before anyone slaps my wrist for stealing song samples from The Beatles page, I cut the samples down to songs that are accepted - and have been cited - as solely McCartney-written songs. It would be nice to have some solo songs. --andreasegde 18:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Song samples

message: "This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while." What is all that about?... It's gone now... No... wait a minute... --andreasegde 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "A major edit"

message: It's back to normal again. It was reverted by the editor concerned. I can calm down now... --andreasegde 12:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to normal

message: In my humble opinion the 1970s looks messy and lacks cohesion. The 1980s has too many (#1 UK - #5 US) for my taste, as they are not repeated for other songs in other sections. What to do? (Sound of sighing, and fingers drumming on desk...) --andreasegde 19:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish the GA review had come by now. Everyone knows this article is FA. LuciferMorgan 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you say so LuciferMorgan, I am very happy to believe you. (I've been thinking about the Lennon article already...) --andreasegde 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1970s and 1980s

message: I have read through a couple of books, and I still can't find where Lennon went to school (Primary and Junior). Have I missed something, am I blind, or just stupid? (Don't answer that last one... :) --andreasegde 19:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am completely stupid: "Quarry Bank Grammar School". How did I miss that? It's a case of "not seeing the wood for the trees"... I shall now wear a hair shirt for a week, and slap myself with a wet fish. How embarrassing. --andreasegde 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lennon's school

message: Right, people; gird your loins, batten down the hatches, make sail, all hands on deck, don't cough because you'll start an avalanche, and make sure you have fresh underwear, because this article is placed as #1 on the "Music and musicians" list on the candidates page. Here we go, here we go, here we go... --andreasegde 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a tip--the lead is too much a recitation of facts, rather it should summarize the article. It has so many refs that it's distracting to read it. Rlevse 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like citations in leads either, with the exception of potentially controversial statements. We have a modified lead in the todo list, can we integrate those changes into a reduced, more highly targetted lead Andrew? Then when it's time for my edit job I'll take care of moving the citations into the body. When you need me please send me an email (NB I'm starting nightshift on Monday, this isn't the best time for me but if now is the moment I'll try my best). --kingboyk 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review is coming very soon

message: Congratulations to Kingboyk, LuciferMorgan, Vera Chuck and Dave, and that other bloke... :) --andreasegde 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever that other bloke is LOL. LuciferMorgan 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The famous Sean de Garde of course! Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: The class has been very diligent this term, and has managed to assemble itself into what is turning out to be a commendable and cohesive whole (no pun intended.) Its work has been rated by the School Board as 'Generally alright' (GA). This is to be applauded, as they started the term with a mountain of 'POV' (Positively outrageous viewpoints) that had to be worked upon.
There are some other points to be made, however, that are of some concern: Pupil Kingboyk has developed the unusual trait of introducing non-standard English phrases into class discussions, like “no-brainer”, and "tweak it", which, I am afraid to say, are against school standards. Pupil LuciferMorgan must curb his irritation when pupils (from other classes in the school) are not as fast, and precise, as he would like, although it must be said that his own work is of the highest standard. Pupils Vera, Chuck and Dave are recovering from their unfortunate accident, and this is to be welcomed, but using the help of minors - from our Junior school - to help them when finishing their homework is frowned upon. Pupil andreasegde has been often vocal, and hard working, but his insistence on teamwork and co-operation is leaning towards socialism, which the School Board vehemently opposes. :) --Mr Hornby - Class tutor 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Class report

message: It would be good to go through the article and point out the prose that needs to be improved. (I don't like the "70s" bit very much, BTW, because it looks messy.) Anyone want a cucumber sandwich? --andreasegde 22:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to edit the Lead, but I only get a blank page (like a new article). Bugger... --andreasegde 22:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the references from the Lead to the article, and have cut it down a bit. It does look cleaner now, and is easier to read, I think... More tea, vicar? --andreasegde 09:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, who's gonna nominate this for FA, after we've cleaned it up a bit? Tally Ho chaps... --andreasegde 14:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually the person willing to address editor concerns is the person who nominates. LuciferMorgan 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well - that's not me... Let's get someone like LuciferMorgan to do it, because he knows how to "separate the wheat from the chaff". If he thinks it's good enough, then it's good enough. :) --andreasegde 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prose would be a likely concern, and is something I can't address. Tony is the guy to watch out for - if the prose is even slightly naff, he'll review the article with a hatchet. Maybe we should ask him to review the prose? LuciferMorgan 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not good enough to throw to Tony yet (because Tony is very much a perfectionist and a professional copyeditor). I had a quick scan earlier and saw a few things which need improving. It's best we copyedit ourselves before approaching him otherwise he'll throw a fit. This is all gonna take a while and whilst we might get an FA now I'd prefer to submit an article which damn near perfect. Andrew's put so much into this, let's have it set a new standard! --kingboyk 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with all of the above. I looked through it yesterday, and saw lots of silly little bits that I had never seen before, strangely enough. I call it 'PC monitor blindness'. You carefully read something three times, print it out, and then see mistakes on the printed page. --andreasegde 04:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also with the above. I haven't a clue how to address prose though, as I'm no good with it. LuciferMorgan 17:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I saw those things after not reading the article for a while. I will spend some time editing when I can, but at the moment I'm getting home from work totally knackered. (It's manual work and I'm not used to it). Hopefully I'll have a go at the weekend. Also we could try to find a new set of eyes to help out. --kingboyk 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prose

message: Doesn't it pee one off to read our edits on a 'clone site'? Kingboyk mentioned this once, and now I know exactly what he means. The lazy, cheating buggers... --andreasegde 21:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you love your subject, and/or if you believe in the dissemination (free, without obligation) of information to any and all who wish to participate in democracy/free will, then no - it is enough that I contribute. Since I do not get paid, and do not require undue recognition, then I do it for love, and I wish there was more love I could spread around (oooh-er, Vicar!). I suspect that you feel the same, deep down, or you wouldn't hide behind your username....yes, that is humour - and well done for recognising same!LessHeard vanU 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But these sites are involved in some kind of sponsorship/advertising = revenue etc., are they not? They're profiting from it, and they should be smacked on their bottoms until it hurts... (Quick nurse, the screens... :) --andreasegde 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's part of the deal. What I objected to was seeing my work on sites which don't acknowledge me, or try to hide it in the smallest print possible. I'm actually planning to use some Wikipedia-sourced material on sites with ads myself, see if I can get a few cents back in return for my time :), so I don't object to that part of it. (It's like Linux: free including the free right to sell it). --kingboyk 02:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clone sites

message: I think I will print out the whole page, and look at it in the cold light of day. This is to avoid "monitor blindness" - © andreasegde :) It's amazing how clear everything becomes when it's on A4 paper. --andreasegde 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Tweaking" - © Kingboyk

message: "Couldn't afford to buy a television until 1953"? Bugger me - my dad said that the first TV he bought was in 1960 (and he was a miner). People who had a 'telly' in '53 were well off. (Errr... is this a replay of the "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch from Monty Python?...) Anybody fancy a pint?... --andreasegde 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol yeah they don't sound that poor. Your dad bought his first TV in 1960? Mine weren't even born until 1965! LuciferMorgan 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'll have a pint of Watneys Bleeeeeeding Red Barrel - you don't give a tinkers cuss for the struggling artiste... (sorry, wrong sketch!). ps. LM, that makes me considerably older than your parents!!LessHeard vanU 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The poor McCartneys

message: Can someone archive the redundant discussion on the page please? It's 99kb! Thanks. LuciferMorgan 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: I've taken 3kb off by removing the HTML comments and some excessive detail. Please don't put the HTML comments about references back. I know they have some value but we can't afford the bytes.
I've done a bit to the todo list but will have to come back to attend it to more fully and do my share of the copyediting. --kingboyk 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken out bits here and there that were Maccas own POV, or irrelevant. (The cats and Jagger-pot have gone.) I also had to take out the references as well, which was soddin' worse than pulling teeth. (Ow...) --andreasegde 07:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been taking out more (but it still hurts...) Should the Macca quote about 'Give Ireland back to the Irish' being banned be taken out? It's not that special. I also checked the article's word count, and it's about 13,000 words. --andreasegde 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When taking info out can we please make sure it ends up in another relevant article? For example, the above Macca quote would be helpful in the song's actual article. If it's general Wings info for example, can we make sure it still ends up in the article for Wings? LuciferMorgan 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bugger, I forgot about that. Bugger, bugger, bugger.... Can you retrieve any? No, that's my job. Bugger. --andreasegde 13:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The info can easily be retrieved by checking the edit history. I'll take a look later when I got time to see if there's anything else that can be used in a "daughter" article - I wouldn't worry Andreas, you're kicking ass with the article anyway. LuciferMorgan 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lucifer. (I hate to say that I was asked to do it before). I've started to do it (honest) even putting 'Notes' and 'References' into the smaller articles. BTW, Macca's 70s reads, and looks, a lot smoother now, methinks... --andreasegde 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2000s needs a clean. Anyone fancy getting the mop and bucket out? --andreasegde 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article size, todo

message: I don't get this: Macca says that he broke up Wings because he didn't want to tour, but he released (the solo) McCartney II before Lennon's death. "Wings resumed activity in 1980" (after his 2nd solo album)... Methinks he had decided to disband Wings before Lennon's death, and used it as an excuse. He never reformed Wings when he started to tour again... "Back to the Egg" (last Wings album) also had no hit singles, and he released that 'christmas thingy' as Macca solo. "The game is afoot, my dear Watson." Too harsh on Macca? Kick me where it hurts... --andreasegde 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think you do not have any right whatsoever, to leave this remark directed at a jocular post left by the editor who brought this article up to Good Article Status Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo. Tvoz 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be Lizzie Bravo, one of the famed Apple Scruffs? Raymond Arritt 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Afraid Lizzie was there before my first pilgrimage, although only by a few years. Tvoz 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macca's 'porky-pies'

message: Article has a quite good basis but needs copyedit, especially including:
* consistent date format: day month year, e.g., 9 October, 1940
* careful trimming of unnecessary words
* The article is too long, but that's already been noted. Raymond Arritt 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for "Song" as it's the form used in The Beatles. I especially dislike the double-emphasis form (quotes and italics, as in "Song"). Raymond Arritt 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Song" for song titles, Album for album titles. That's the Wikipedia way. --kingboyk 06:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Lol - Wait a minute... what do you mean by "quite good"? I have been reliably informed that this article is "kicking rectum". :)) --andreasegde 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that bloke that has a girl's name. --Andrew Edge 02:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who's confused -- is it you, or me? ;-) Raymond Arritt 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: Roughly 12,500. --Sir Sean de Garde 16:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Size is already a problem. The "Family life" and "Art, writing and classical music" sections could be trimmed way down -- they're worth having, but in current form are disproportionately long. Raymond Arritt 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trimming down means we're getting rid of interesting stuff, so all please make sure the info ends up in other appropriate articles. LuciferMorgan 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Word count

message: There is a feature in this (next) weeks RT re The La'. I will give it a read to see if it adds anything (hopefully topical) to the article - or any related ones. However, I don't want to add anything unnecessary/trivial.LessHeard vanU 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing of note that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere.LessHeard vanU 11:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Macca / Radio Times

message: As LuciferMorgan has pointed out, it is imperative that anything that is deleted is moved to relevant articles - when possible. (I refer to the Jane Asher section). The concert at the Royal Albert Hall was organised by the BBC, but it was not moved to Asher's article (which needs more input). I know it's a pain, but it has to be done. --andreasegde 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the thing is, it improves other Beatles related articles then. LuciferMorgan 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, everything deleted has to be relocated elsewhere? Every trivial little detail? I can foresee a situation where people keep shuffling these things back and forth. Google for "mathom". Raymond Arritt 20:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a piece of information that will make an article worth reading, it is worthwhile. Asher's article needs more information (as well the in-line citation that was also deleted from Macca). It doesn't mean you have to organise the other articles, but just put it in there somewhere, and it will be organised by someone who is interested in it. --andreasegde 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. I spent a lot of time reading the books and putting the citations in there, so to see them deleted leaves me feeling somewhat disgruntled. If the original writers thought they were worthy, then who are we to argue? --andreasegde 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a real demon for conciseness and focus. (At work I'm famous for putting a big red X through entire pages.) I'm trying to put myself in the position of someone who isn't a crazed überfan like I am, and who might not be interested in every minute detail such as who played tambourine on "I Am The Walrus" (it was Paul, btw) or that Barry Miles's address in London was 15 Hanson Street. It's all a matter of judgment. Please don't take it disgruntledly - if you think I've gone overboard on conciseness and deleted something important, add it back in. I bet that between the two of us we can strike a good balance. Raymond Arritt 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you, Raymond Arritt, but I refer you to the point I made below, about moving, and places to move them to. (Barry Miles also has an article) Could we create more new articles? If we had one (or two) more Macca-related articles, we could easily lose 1,000 words. --andreasegde 04:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Miles' address has gone (with citation, of course) to his own article. --andreasegde 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting and moving

message: Article reads repetitively listy in places. "In 2000", "In 1999" etc. etc. - can you see what I'm referring to? This might need addressing. LuciferMorgan 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- it's on my to-do list. Raymond Arritt 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that's a very good point, LuciferMorgan. --andreasegde 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listy

message: The Wings' section could be heavily trimmed, and a lot of stuff moved (with citations) to the Wings' article. --andreasegde 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loads of things could be trimmed - we won't have an article soon enough! LuciferMorgan 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's recommendation for maximum article length is 6000 to 10,000 words. In its present form, the article is about 12,000 words. An article considerably longer than the recommended maximum is in no danger of disappearing soon! Raymond Arritt 01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article length is now about 11,500. --andreasegde 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been trimming Lady Mucca (and moving citations as well). 500 to 1,000 more words and we're in for the kill... (Sorry, Sir Macca, for using a comment about killing things "with a face"). --andreasegde 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wings

message: The main problem seems to be is that we have to delete/move 1,000 words to other articles, but there are not enough articles to move them to. (I think that this must be a new problem for Wikipedians...) What new 'Macca-related' articles can we create to get around this problem? (Fork articles? It's a forking problem...)
* McCartney's family?
* McCartney's drug use?
* McCartney and art/literature?
* McCartney's use of indoor plumbing facilities (with guitar)? :)
(Good grief, I wish I had known about this size thing becoming a problem before I started balancing the books on my knees... :)
--andreasegde 18:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I vote for a separate article on the art/literature stuff. Let's face it, most people are interested in Paul because of his accomplishments in pop music, plus maybe some personal background (like family and drug use). We could have a brief mention of his work in non-pop fields that points to to the spinoff article or articles. Raymond Arritt 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *I agree with forking his art/literature stuff. --andreasegde 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Not particularly happy at losing any entire section, but if one has to be reduced to a summary it would have to be that one. --kingboyk 06:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yes, it would leave a summary, but it would reduce the article size. I think the article is brilliant, but we have to cut, cut, cut. Oh, the pain...  --andreasegde 06:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes you are... --Sir Sean de Garde 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now, boys, clean the blackboard and straighten the chairs. We'll have no disturbances here in this local school... --Mr Hornby 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sod off. --Andrew Edge 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut, cut, cut

message: 10,694. It's coming down, said the bishop to the actress... --andreasegde 18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more word cuts I vote. To hell with cutting more stuff out, and let's address prose. If prose is ok, it's off to FAC I reckon. LuciferMorgan 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, albeit hesitatingly, because this 6,000 to 10,000 words rule seems to dominate the subject. We can chop a mere 265 words with no damage to the prose, and then put it up for review. I personally think the prose is good (ouch!) apart from the "In 2004" bits, which LuciferMorgan rightly talked about as being irritating. --andreasegde 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Word count

message: andreasegde, you're doing great... trimming needless words without affecting content. William Strunk would be proud. Raymond Arritt 08:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. 9,819 now. I'm gonna stop cutting. Maybe some more references for the odd line here and there that doesn't have them... (BTW, I got the Strunk book as a Xmas present three years ago, but I haven't really read it - I suppose I should... :) --andreasegde 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 9,801 - No... 9,774. I haven't cut any content - just cleaned little things up a bit. --andreasegde 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned in an edit summary - if you still need to cut, I wonder if you really need exact dates in much of the article - month and year might well suffice, and you'd save some characters. (FOr example, do we really need to know that it was 13 April 1965 that he bought a house? Wouldn't it be enough to know it was April 1965? Just a thought. (By the way, I think being forced to cut this way is not necessarily compatible with having top-notch material, and I therefore don't particularly agree with this WIki policy. BUt that's just my opinion.) Tvoz 08:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: attaboy

message: The year is coming to an end, and I am sure all of the pupils will look back at the last term with pride. Their co-operation has gained the respect of the whole school, and is a shining example to us all. Mr Lake will now play a medley of Beat songs on his organ - if his bellows are working. --Mr Hornby 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Class Report

message: Is someone going to put this up up for a "Featured Article", or an FA (Fcu*k All)? WE don't want to do it, because it would seem too biased, and we're team-handed. --andreasegde, Sir Sean de Garde, Mr Hornby, him with the girl's name, and 'Privet Hedge' 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can place an article for FA. Whoever puts it up though is expected to address people's concerns. I nominate you (Andreas) to put it up for FA. If not, I guess I'll have to, but I don't have time to address people's concerns so someone else would have to watch the FAC page. LuciferMorgan 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the article's listy nature which I mentioned earlier hasn't been addressed yet. LuciferMorgan 00:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good-o. I'll watch the FAC page, but I don't want to put it up. Now, how can we deal with this listy thing? --andreasegde 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By making it unlisty. LuciferMorgan 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the "To do" section above needs addressing - or do we want to give FAC commentators reasons to stop the article being FA? LuciferMorgan 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA

message: The decade sections from 1970 on each start out with a -- guess what -- list of albums that Paul released. In the interest of delistification, how about if we delete these? Most of the albums are mentioned in the discussion that follows, and we already have a discography. Raymond Arritt 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.... --andreasegde 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't have been added in the first place.... rid of them. LuciferMorgan 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added them, but I deserve to be slapped with a fish for doing so. (Ouch!) --andreasegde 17:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listy list

message: Just wondering about the "marriage to Linda" beginning: he phoned her in September 68 and asked her to "fly to London" to do what? They got married 6 mos later, but these 2 sentences don't flow properly - what's missing? They lived together, they realized they were in love, something. (I know you're trying to cut, but it has to make sense, no?) Tvoz 07:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. MCartney stayed with Linda in New York at some time back then, and enjoyed doing the dishes and walking around New York without being hassled - which is later what attracted Lennon to the 'Big Apple'. I'll look it up. --andreasegde 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: linda

message: Is the article presently stable in terms of content, or are there still sections that will be shunted to other articles (or deleted)? Some of the lifestyle stuff like "recreational drug use" needs copyedit and I'd rather not do it if the material will be moved or deleted. Raymond Arritt 18:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's less than 10,000 words now (9,519) so that's not a problem anymore. If there's anything that needs cutting (without removing content) then go for it. It's good that people look at it in a different light, which will help a lot before hordes of others descend upon it. --andreasegde 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stable?

message: I have a lot of trouble with this: "Mull of Kintyre" became the highest-selling record in British chart history, and remained so until Michael Jackson's mega album Thriller in 1984. This confuses a single with an album, and uses the horrible adjective 'mega'. --andreasegde 20:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I edited that bit recently, but didn't write the original material. Presumably it hinges on the word "record" -- my interpretation is that the single MoK was the highest-selling record until 1984, when the album "Thriller" became the highest selling record; i.e., sales of the album "Thriller" exceeded those for the single MoK. Is the latter point correct? Raymond Arritt 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't confuse the sales of an album with a single. The people at 'Guinness' have very strict views about that... :))
"Formed the band Wings with his late wife"? She wasn't dead when he formed the band. --andreasegde 20:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a tough one! Obviously she wasn't dead then; but "with his wife" could imply his current wife (Heather Mills, at least for now). I thought about "his then-wife", but that often implies the couple has separated. Maybe "with his first wife"? Raymond Arritt 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest being very Wikipedian - which is to be very, very dry, and to state the facts as they were at the time. Mr Strunk would agree with us. :) --andreasegde 22:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjectives and confusion

message: Macca came second in a poll to list the greatest living icon in Britain. David Attenborough came first, which is a fair result. --andreasegde 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as neither have to put on "plaster of paris" make-up and hold stupid poses for people waiting to board the London Eye, then fine. (As far as I am concerned, though, Morrissey can be dipped into fast setting concrete and dropped off the nearby pier - and I am a fan of his first bands music, I should add).LessHeard vanU 13:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: McCartney the II

message: It says that for the Concert For George that Paul played Something on ukulele unaccompanied, this however is incorrect. He began the song unacompanied and was joined by the rest of the musicians part way through.
:If that's true, then fix it, don't just say so here. (I remember the uke but don;t remember the rest too clearly so I'll leave it to someone who can confirm this.) Tvoz 20:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul played the song unaccompanied on his 2002-3 World Tour. At the Concert For George he was joined by the band after opening the song solo. Keithmall 12:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check it out on youtube (if it's still there) andreasegde 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Macca played acoustic guitar on "Something" and that it was  Joe Brown who played the Uke and sang, "I'll See You In My Dreams" at the end of the concert - if you look at Brown's article, there's a piccy of him from the concert playing a Uke. Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah your'e right Joe, I confused the songs, I thought Macca played the Uke on Something else, what did he play guitar on? Cheers! Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, he puts the Uke down, and picks up a guitar and Clapton returns the song to the correct tempo and finishes it off, I Knew I had a picture of him playing guitar on that song in my mind! Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something

message: Paul McCartney did not contribute backing vocals to Do They Know Its Christmas by Band Aid. He did make a short spoken word contribution to the B Side
Keithmall 22:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't appear according to the Wiki entry for the song, but it does say that Bowie does (he doesn't). Is it possible that the original writer meant (or misunderstood) that Macca appears on the "back" of the single (the b-side of the old style vinyl format) speaking? In truth, Macca does appear on the record, but not the recording.LessHeard vanU 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my screwup -- I didn't double-check sources. Sorry. Raymond Arritt 23:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, Big Man (as in "...it takes a big man to admit he was wrong.")LessHeard vanU 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do They Know Its Christmas?