Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles

Archives
March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006

Template:WP:BEATLES Navigation

Category:The Beatles music samples

I don't know if any of you realize this, but we probably have samples of every Beatles song already on Wikipedia. Back in 2002 and 2005, User:Lee Daniel Crocker uploaded Ogg files of a very many samples. I'm in the process of putting them into Category:The Beatles music samples, but a few things need to be done with songs I've already categorized:

• The category needs to be sorted (e.g. [[Category:The Beatles music samples|Please Please Me]]).
• The description pages of the samples need to be standardized. They're not wikified and they all say "Beatles" instead of "The Beatles".
• The talk pages need to be tagged with our project template.
• The articles related to the samples need to be linked with {{listen}}. The Beatles lists a few samples, and the articles for some of those songs don't even link to them!

And there are probably other things that I haven't thought of. Let's get to it! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, not as many as I originally thought (the search results were deceiving), but there are at least 46 to take care of, by my count. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've done a bunch to give an example of what I'm thinking. See All My Loving (sample), The End (sample), I Am the Walrus (sample), Magical Mystery Tour (sample), Penny Lane (sample), and Strawberry Fields Forever (sample) to see how I've done it. And get to the rest of them! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone plan on doing this...? I would've thought it'd be rather important. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 11:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I did some of it recently, but it still needs to be expanded. I'm sure there are still samples that aren't in the category yet. (I came across some the other day.) There are duplicate samples. Some articles don't link to all samples and some samples aren't linked on all articles. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with article Kansas City (R&B song)

This article is about a rhythm and blues song that was written in the early 50s by Leiber and Stoller and recorded by a number of artists, most famously Wilbert Harrison. In the 1960s the Beatles recorded a drastically different version of the song which was combined into a medley with a Little Richard composition called Hey Hey Hey. This has given rise to some confusion over at the article, because things like the song infobox reflect the Beatles recording, yet the article is supposed to be about the original song which has a much longer history and notoriety than it having been recorded by the Beatles (the Wilbert Harrison recording is far more famous, IMO). I'd like to suggest that a new article be created specifically about the medley "Kansas City/Hey Hey Hey". Thoughts? 23skidoo 03:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is that different versions of songs should be in the same article. However, given that they were radically different (and the Beatles one a medley), and both very famous, I suppose a split may be OK. Be bold and try it! --kingboyk 10:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make a point that The Beatles were covering the Little Richard medley. They didn't create the medley themselves. Little Richard had already put the two songs together. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I didn't want to say in case I was wrong :) --kingboyk 10:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles

Beatlesque has been wiped and polished a little bit by yours truly, but it needs more details. I considered merging it into The Beatles trivia, but on second thoughts it would make trivia too long. Has anybody looked at Beatlesque lately? --andreasegde 19:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You sure it would make "trivia" too long? Seems a lot of that material would fit in well. Also, if "trivia" gets too long it can be split up. The term "Beatlesque" is probably already mentioned somewhere, and we really don't need that article I think... can you try merging? --kingboyk 20:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. (My reason for asking is that I saw that The Beatles article has been tagged as too long.) --andreasegde 19:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Too long to be editable in some (old) browsers. There's longer articles out there than The Beatles, I can assure you! :)

Maybe you should split the trivia article anyway. You want me to take a look? --kingboyk 19:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bugger, I´ve just done it! Split the trivia article? Why not, but into what sections? Have a look. It´s definitely getting a bit long... but hey, what do I know? :) --andreasegde 20:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I meant look at the split. You were good to go on the merging :)

You didn't note in your edit summary that you were merging an article, so the people who wrote Beatlesque wouldn't be getting credit. That's quite important so remember it for next time please folks ;) I've sorted it with a no content edit

What to do with what's left at Beatlesque? Replace it with a redirect somewhere? I think so, but where?

Splitting the trivia article: Well, it's gonna be complicated a bit by there being some overlap with other articles which already exist. Perhaps you should have a shifty through the Beatles category first and see what unloved articles there are? You could move some of the "trivia" content into those other articles, or merge those poor articles and trivia into a series of new ones? There's also quite a hotchpotch of info isn't there? I think I'd rather see what other articles overlap with this one before advising, but I can see a few general trends:

• Genuine trivia, which can stay where it is
• People and bands inspired by the Beatles
• People who worked with them, or people and music which inspired them (possibly starting to overlap with "5th Beatle" and "the Beatles' influences" territory)
• The Beatles in fiction, film etc

So, you fancy having a shifty around for other articles which have some overlap and then we can see what to do with all this material? Anyone else got any ideas?? --kingboyk 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bloomin ´eckers, I´ll have to have a think about that one. Good points though. --andreasegde 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, there's a few articles in Category:WikiProject The Beatles merge candidates still. What do we want to do with them? Are they merge candidates still (and are any of interest to you Andreas?), or should we just give them a Stub/Start/B/A rating? --kingboyk 21:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I will merge Beatlemania, and La De Da. The others are too long. (I don’t understand why some of them have to be merged - they seem pretty good to me.)

I think this is a problem on lots of pages; split the original article because it’s too long – then merge it back because it has not been accepted as being important enough.

The Beatles Haircut is a case in point. Que sera, sera…

(The Dissenters should be called The Quarrymen, BTW.) --andreasegde 09:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You've probably nailed the main ones then. Some of the others - notably History of the Beatles - weren't bad or trivial articles, but were simply out of control. The history section in The Beatles was getting to be the same size as the forked articles.

If there's any you find which you think should no longer be marked as merge candidates, either change it or bring it here for a second opinion. Most of these ratings were done a long time ago.

Cheers mate, this is a really helpful job you're doing! --kingboyk 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Can any project member read?

Why, yes.

Do any of you have any good quality books on The Beatles? A pile of 60s NMEs under the bed? A stack of Mojos, Qs, Rolling Stones?

Some of you must have!

It's been commented on at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Hard Day's Night (song) what a poor show the project is putting up, and I have to agree. A Hard Day's Night (song) is going to lose it's FA star if we don't get busy on it. It seems to be a pretty decent article that just needs a polish, some improvements in tone and neutralising, and inline citations.

Having an FA star is a serious business. Of 1.3 million or so articles, only 1100 are Featured. Getting an FA is difficult. I've worked hours and hours getting FAs for WP:KLF and it's a tough job. Losing an FA shouldn't be tolerated by any WikiProject, and we're losing them at such a rate we'll be down to zero soon enough.

This is the last time I'm gonna shout and moan on this issue (and, of course, folks might well say why don't I do it, but all my books are packed away, and I do plenty enough already I think), but if you want the Beatles to be seriously represented on Wikipedia we have to dust off those books and start citing. --kingboyk 20:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right kingboyk, but is the reason that there are no citations is because they are not properly formatted in "references"? The books that are listed in references seem to cover the subject, but they are not supported by reference tags in the article - is this the case? New users may need to be informed about the procedure. --andreasegde 13:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. New FA standards say that a "References" section is not enough; each fact or statement which is based on something from an external source should have a specific reference within the text. Have a look at The KLF and you'll see what I mean - lots of footnotes. The syntax is very simple:

<ref>A reference, e.g. Author, Title, page</ref>

<ref name="Lewisohn">A reusable reference, e.g. Author, Title, page</ref>

<ref name="Lewisohn"/> Reusing reference:

==References== <references/>

References

--kingboyk 13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah kingboyk is correct in this, and I hope some of his enthusiasm rubs off on other Project members and starts a craze of inline citing the appropriate statements with reliable sources. If The KLF and other related FAs are taken as examples to aspire to, then editors can't go wrong at all. LuciferMorgan 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, with one caveat. When writing KLF articles I've had the tremendous luxury of access to an online library of press clippings. The best sources for Beatle-related articles are likely to be books and magazines, with a little backup from online resources. Access to Proquest or a similar newspaper archive would of course be great for newer media references, but The Beatles are so well served in print that has to be the main resource. --kingboyk 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Beatles articles are direct quotes from Beatles which aren't cited, likely from interviews. Most of these are duplicated online with info regarding the original source also, which means you can use this info to add inline citations to the direct quotes (without needing to own the original mag, nor linking to a website). LuciferMorgan 20:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I expect most members have at least one good quality Beatles book, and possibly a whole shelf full gathering dust. They're also likely to have Anthology per below, and some of the old interview records are surprisingly good too, and some of the TV documentaries of course. If anything the internet is a hindrance to researching articles like this cos it makes everyone lazy and reliant on online sources(especially geeks like to me). I'm adamant that most of the best Beatles material is offline. --kingboyk 19:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Haircut

I have just merged the Haircut into The Beatles´influence on popular culture. I know the popular culture page has also been tagged as "Merge", but I think it can be saved - with a lot of cuts and references. --andreasegde 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. If you think it can be saved, just change the class= from Merge to something else... probably "Start" in this case? --kingboyk 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. There´s a lot of stuff to cut out, and funnily enough, the haircut isn´t one of them, as it did influence popular culture. I am sharpening my scissors as we speak... --andreasegde 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Beatlesque

Shouldn´t it be deleted? --andreasegde 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Beatlesque is a rather important genre of music. How many other bands have a term for those bands/songs that sound like them? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I take it back. As it stands now, it should be deleted... or expanded. Though it was recently merged. (Tip: Next time link to it when mentioning it. Then I'll look before opening my mouth.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I really dislike these conglomerate articles (e.g. The Beatles trivia and The Beatles' influence on popular culture). They're not even real articles. They're like expanded lists. They're horrible. I'd rather see each topic have its own article, where things can be expanded upon if need be. Or left along, if not. Just because a topic is notable doesn't mean there's a lot to read/write about. Short articles are not necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, in the meantime, I've changed Beatlesque to redirect to where the content went. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(You're on a roll tonight, Gordon :) Anyway... I think the reason that articles like the ones you mentioned exist is to take the pressure off the main articles. I can only surmise by asking this: Do you read an encyclopedia from the front to the back, do you read from the back to the front, or do you skim through it for things that you are interested in? Not everyone follows the same path. Having every detail in the main article would be too much to take in. (Thanks for the apostrophes again, BTW.) --andreasegde 22:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Beatlesque is that in essence the only thing to say about it is "a band or musician who sound like The Beatles". That makes it a dictionary defition really. Direct influence on other bands ought imho to be in "influences on popular culture". A list of every band that sounded like The Beatles one time or another, well... do we even need that?

Anyrode, remember, all edits and page moves can be undone on wiki. We try to make articles better, if it doesn't work we can change things back. Nothing is irreversible. --kingboyk 15:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Neil Aspinall

I have adopted him. (Neil Aspinall) --andreasegde 17:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How do his parents feel about that? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question! How does his kid (Roag, who he had by Mona Best; mother of Pete) feel about me being his adoptive-grandad? (I have to sit down - it's getting too complicated...) I'm amazed that nobody ever worked on his (Aspinall's) article before. He's a big-wig in The Beatles Corps. Even McCartney called him "Mr. X". --andreasegde 22:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured article review

I'd like to (again) point out that Beatles FA articles are coming up for featured article review, and I have the full intention of nominating ALL the rest for FAR at regular intervals. So far She Loves You has already been de-featured, A Day in the Life will likely be de-featured in the coming days, and A Hard Day's Night (song) is about to become a Featured Article Removal Candidate. All the others will be put up for FAR also and have the same danger - I'd like to say that this is solely to maintain FA standards and not a personal vendetta (I like the Beatles, especially Lennon). If nothing is done to address the FA concerns, then the Beatles Wikiproject will be left with no FAs which'll be unfortunate. This is a cool Wikiproject with several active users, so rather than adopting stub articles maybe one or two can adopt Beatles FAs and brush them up a little? LuciferMorgan 12:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. --andreasegde 13:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Anthology

Is it allowed to reference the Anthology DVDs? I do have them all in my possession, after all... --andreasegde 14:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Could be - consult the Wiki community at large. The main problem with Beatles FAs is they directly quote Beatles members without citing the original music interviews. Someone needs to trace the actual interviews, and then add the inline citations - this would be a major help if some users did this. LuciferMorgan 15:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Try this: [1]It´s a good reference. --andreasegde 04:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah use that website, but when directly adding the inline cite write at the end "Reported at [BeatleBoy1]. I would gain the sufficient info you need - interviewer name, interview heading (if mag interview), publication/broadcast date, name of publication/radio etc. and issue number (if magazine) and so on, and don't forget to add the date you last accessed the info. If you have any problems finding all the info you need about an interview when citing it, email the webmaster and he'll reply (he replied to me regarding a 1962 radio interview and added the extra content needed!). LuciferMorgan 10:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you're quoting, I'd say. If you're using the interviews they recorded in the 90s (with Jools Holland I believe) specifically for Anthology then, yes, definitely. Of course, care has to be taken when quoting the subject, are we citing their first-hand opinion and experiences (great, we want to put their perspective into articles, offset against the writing of "experts" of course) or using them for facts* (not necessarily great; memories fade, people can be jaded etc). In short, yes, use the "new" interviews from Anthology. For older material presented in Anthology, it would as "Lucifer" said be better to cite the original material directly. In cases where that can't be done, citing Anthology is way better than citing nothing. --kingboyk 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) *e.g. George says "That tour was hell, I hated it." Great, into the article it goes, "George recalled hating the tour, "it was hell" he said.". Ringo says "I think that record sold about 10 million copies". Not so good. Best to get it from a source that purveys reliable data. Failing that, it's "According to Ringo Starr in Anthology, ..."

Language and format

Does The Beatles project have an agreed format for language and dates in terms of American versus British style? That is, would we write "organised on 1 June 1967", or "organized on June 1, 1967"? In several of the articles the format is mixed (part American, part British). I'd like to reconcile these but don't know which standard applies. Apologies if this is an old issue (see WP:BITE). Raymond Arritt 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Raymond. I also have problems deciding which to use. The 31st of December, 2006, for example? It also needs a comma after years: "In 1966 they..." - "In 1966, they..." --andreasegde 04:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if dates were wikilinked, the user preferences would then determine the format. As a result I always format like this (8 October 2006) but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Anyone know how we should be doing this? --kingboyk 11:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, as a starting point for discussion I propose that we use British spellings and formats. They were a British group, after all... Formal usage for dates would be, e.g., 9 October 1940 (not October 9 or the less formal 9th October). Raymond Arritt 15:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would go for October 9, 1940, as it is international. (I know it's US military speak). 9 October sounds like nine Octobers in a row. British would be "the 9th of October, 1940," which nobody wants to do - do they? (I hope not :) --andreasegde 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, speaking from a field I have experience in, academic journals use the format [day month year], e.g., 9 October 1940. I don't agree that [month day, year] is international, or British, as shown by a quick look at web sites for some British newspapers. Raymond Arritt 19:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

8 October 2006 is pretty British I think. But is anyone seeing that phrase in a format other than 8/October/2006? I'd been led to believe that a wikilinked date like that would display based on your regional settings. Perhaps I got it wrong. Anyone? Lar? LuciferMorgan? --kingboyk 19:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

American computer settings put the day after the month (10/9/40) which is disturbing. They're following the US military style. If it was written as October/9/1940, I could live a happy life... --andreasegde 19:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bugger, I have just realised that most books use 9 October, 1940. I'll stick to that, if nobody minds. --andreasegde 05:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had decided long ago to stick to British usage for anything not specifically related to the United States. I personally have my preferences set up to show "9 October, 1940" (day month, year) as "October 9, 1940" (month day, year). As a side note, in places where this may be a problem (i.e. outside of Wikipedia), I prefer to simply use "1940-10-09" (yyyy-mm-dd). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Get Back

Get Back is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. LuciferMorgan 10:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Laughter

If anyone wants to brighten up their day, I suggest you watch this: [2] It's fab. --andreasegde 06:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I have noticed (haven't we all?) that editors don't put citations in. (Old news - yawn...) I think that the page on how to put them in is too complicated/confusing for an itchy-fingered new user (myself included, in the past).

I think that putting citations in should be stressed as much as possible, and a link to explain how it can be done should be at the top of every single page. It would raise the profile, and rating, of hundreds of pages, would it not? --andreasegde 05:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

All hail the new king of inline citations, andreasegde! :) Perhaps some notes could go onto the project template, e.g. into the "Suggested article edit guidelines" section? That would put the info on the top of every Beatles-related talk page, at least. --kingboyk 10:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's only one King on these pages :) Perhaps a minor foreign prince? As for notes in the templates... errr, I could write a simple explanation (for fools like me) but I would like it to be looked over before it went anywhere. --andreasegde 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. You write it, one of us (probably me, pfff) will check it. --kingboyk 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When initially learning how to add inline citations, I found it easier to click edit on a page and paste the text into a document. Some other stuff (like when you're adding several cites which link to the same source) I had DMoon1 to teach me. I'm all for anything which promotes improving Wikipedia's quality and reliability. LuciferMorgan 16:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've added a note to the project template (could use copyediting), and put some instructions up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Policy#Citations. --kingboyk 10:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Imagine

Is it within the realms of possibility that two, three, four (and more of us) could work on ONE article together? (We know who we are, do we not?) We could zap an article with references, and write/rewrite it well, and have lots of FA articles in not much time at all. --andreasegde 22:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Vera, Chuck, and Dave has joined up. --andreasegde 21:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Other projects call this "colloboration of the week" (or month or however long it takes). It's a good idea. Which article are you gonna work on? Macca? --kingboyk 09:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A Day in the Life De-Featured (Note to Editors)

I'd clean up the FAs you all already have first. I intend to nominate the next Beatles FA for FAR on October 22nd which'll likely be I Want to Hold Your Hand (Hey Jude is better cited and only needs minor work such as a cleanup of the "Cultural References" section, so I'll wait awhile to see if this is addressed). A Day in the Life was de-featured today, and the others face the same danger. Currently Get Back is at FAR while A Hard Day's Night (song) is at FARC - if sufficient work isn't being done on the latter within 2-3 weeks it'll be de-featured also. LuciferMorgan 16:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about this: If they were featured, then why have they been de-featured? What happened along the way? What went wrong? --andreasegde 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FA requirements are constantly evolving, and is much stringent compared to when they were initially bestowed featured status. If someone feels an article no longer meets current FA standards, then they can nominate the article's FA status be reviewed at WP:FAR - thus what I've been doing with the Beatles articles. Someone else nominated The Beatles which became de-featured, while under my nominations She Loves You and A Day in the Life have been de-featured. As I mentioned above, two other Beatles FAs are currently being reviewed. Inline citations is a frequent issue which keeps cropping up with the Beatles FAs. LuciferMorgan 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (In short, what went wrong is the Beatles Wikiproject has failed to keep its FAs up to evolving standards.)

Good points, LuciferMorgan. --andreasegde 21:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Progress tracking

(I'll also raise this on the current newsletter talk page...) See the cyclone newsletter. A progress box showing article status might be a good thing for our newsletter. Thoughts? I think the whole thing is parameterised, or could be (their source has it hardcoded but I could fix that. ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

McCartney

Paul McCartney. I'm nearly done with His Holiness' article. Could someone look through it and let me know what it needs, or doesn't? (I know the Wings years and later are thin, but Vera,Chuck and Dave is helping on that one.) --andreasegde 12:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will indeed - as soon as I lay me hands on the book that's on order! Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue I raised on your user talk page still needs addressing. LuciferMorgan 15:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What issue on my talk page is that then? Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan's on about my page. I have cut down the section a lot, but I will put it into prose. --andreasegde 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done it, but I will come back later to polish it. --andreasegde 16:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers la, wondered wot he was on about! Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles (Tagged for Speedy Deletion!)

Somebody's tagged the Beatles main article for speedy deletion! I'd keep an eye on the page for awhile, and remove the deletion tag. LuciferMorgan 10:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Ratings

Beatles songs recently de-featured from FA need to be rated from scratch using the assessment scale. They are 'She Loves You' and 'A Day in the Life'. LuciferMorgan 21:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks Mr Morgan, that's done. Alas, I had to grade them B as they don't have inline citations and wouldn't even get GA at the moment. I've argued against that at GA until I'm blue in the face but there we go, that's the current reality. I think it's a shame as 'A Day in the Life' is better than B, but I can't rate it A if it wouldn't get GA! --kingboyk 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article you mention had been inline cited, I think FAR would have found it much more difficult to find viable reasons to de-feature it. GA I thought was more relaxed on inline citations, but according to the criteria they're "required", whereas for FA they are to be used "where appropriate". A little odd is that, but if it promotes article improvement then I'm happy with it. If the above is true for GA, Sgt. Pepper is in danger.

If there's a list of reliable Beatles books, I'd suggest putting their names on the Project page as decent sources to search for inline citations. Maybe there's a specific one that deals with the songs? Anyway, I think their FA removal has now helped the Project realise the need for inline cites, and that makes me happy to have FAR'd them. It has a few decent editors in its midst, and all they need is direction. The decision to begin with McCartney is rather wise - once GA/FA status is achieved, I'd propose then working on Lennon, followed by Harrison and then Starr (in that order). I'll be monitoring the Project's progress - if a peer review is needed feel free to get in touch everyone. LuciferMorgan 09:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Fool on the Hill

Does everyone agree with the rather certain explanation given for the meaning of this song? Aaadddaaammm 04:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard about it, but if it's in the book, then it is.... (The book is mentioned, but not cited on the page, BTW.) --andreasegde 08:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (It is now.......) --andreasegde 09:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't sufficiently cited at present - one would need a specific page number. LuciferMorgan 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

FA articles

I think that we should be concentrating on getting all of the articles to be featured as A articles, and then GA articles. (I know some of them already are, but for how long?) FA articles will come, but only when we have done the work that is needed. The standard for FA articles is being raised all the time (as has been previously said) so we should think in terms of "Baby-steps", and work up to FA articles.

The problems are simple: In-line citations, no adjectives (such as, " a wonderful album") and helping new users to understand these points. We have to make it easy, and understandable. --andreasegde 20:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reposting here cos people might not notice it further up: I've added a note to the project template (could use copyediting), and put some instructions up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Policy#Citations. --kingboyk 10:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think (good grief, does this bloke ever shut up? lol) that the simple explanation of how to cite should be on every talk page, and should never be archived. It's alright for us to know how to do it, but it should always be there (with a short explanation about NO POV = adjectives) for the editors that don't know. --andreasegde 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

Good morning and greetings from WikiProject Guitarists. I am posting a note here because someone from the good article project came through and left a note that the Eric Clapton article doesn't use enough inline citations for an article its size. They are apparently reevaluating all of the GA articles and this article's GA status could be revoked if that issue isn't fixed. Since you folks have your banner on that article as well, I am just dropping a note in case anyone here has a chance to look at it. We will try also. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Beatles (album)" moved

Lord revan moved without even discussing it in the talk page "The Beatles (album)" to "The BEATLES", can someone revert it? --69.79.196.112 00:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Co-operation

(Vera, Chuck, and Dave) made a great point recently that although there are many contributors to this project, there are very few that are involved in "hands-on" work. I believe that this is because they feel insecure about asking for help. (I refer you to the last post...) We have to constantly remember that new users (such as myself, a few months ago) don't know the simplest of meanings like, "My bad", or "We lost the FA".

We have to help, explain to, and support these new users. This is not a private club, and it is no place for elitism (no matter how good we think we are). "Help! I need somebody", being a pertinent phrase. --andreasegde 16:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My main hesitance is that I don't own any Beatles books, I can't do copyedit that well, and my time is so limited I'm afraid my minor contributions may be looked down upon. Also, I'm considered the nemesis of this Project due to FARs. LuciferMorgan 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)