Jump to content

Talk:The Beatles (album)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uniplex (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 24 August 2011 (→Requested move: Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconThe Beatles C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to albums on Wikipedia.
To-do list:
For WikiProject The Beatles

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?
WikiProject iconAlbums B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Genre(s)

We all agree that this album has an incredibly diverse set of songs and styles, but first and foremost, it is a rock album. In fact, it is largely recognized as the Beatles return to their rock roots. Let's classify this as rock. Do we really need a genre for each song? Proedit21 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Proedit21Proedit21 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call it "Rawk 'n Rolling" and be done with it.--andreasegde (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it only Rock sort of diminishes what the Beatles were doing on this album. I notice the Velvet Underground and Hendrix get like three to five sub-genres but the Beatles get called rock. I think you are decieving people who don't know the Beatles that well that they might be only one type of music. Rock music was just one of many elements in the Beatles music.

--RigbyEleanor (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor[reply]

I agree with Rigby Eleanor it should be "Rock, Hard Rock, Folk, Pop" as Pop is covering songs like Martha My Dear, Honey Pie, I Will, Don't Pass Me By and etc. Folk is covering Bungallow Bill, Rocky Racoon, Mother Nature's Son, Blackbird, I Will and etc. Rock is covering songs like Dear Prudence, Glass Onion, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Savoy Truffle and etc. Hard Rock is for Back in the USSR, Birthday, Helter Skelter, Everybody's got something to hide and etc. And there you go, covering almost every single song, and I didn't even mention some songs that fit like I'm So Tired to rock, Yer Blues to hard rock, Sexy Sadie to rock, Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da to pop, Piggies to pop, Why Don't We Do It In the Road to rock, Julia to folk, and etc! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilmccartney (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Proedit21. Just about every song on the album is classified as either rock or a subgenre of rock, such as hard rock, blues-rock, folk rock, ect., so rock would cover almost every song. We shouldn't list the subgenres, especially when many of them only cover one or two songs. The songs that aren't classified as either rock or a rock subgenre aren't numerous enough to have their genres included in the infobox. For example, only two songs, Blackbird and Mother Nature's Son, are classified as folk, so to include folk in the infobox would be just silly. I don't think anyone is going to be like "gee, I thought the White Album was folk, but Wikipedia says it's just rock. What's going on here?" --John of Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution 9 time

Under the track listings I think the time for revolution 9 is wrong. It says 8:13 but I think it is 8:22 can some one confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.67.220.211 (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to my iTunes import of the remastered CD, it is 8:22. McLerristarr / Mclay1 15:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8:22 according to the 30th anniversary re-issue I'm playing right now, and the article states this too. I'll be bold and change it. Lugnuts (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sales tallies for double albums

could someone out there clarify something for me regarding double albums? I believe each copy sold according to the RIAA for a double album that is less than 100 minutes in length is counted only once not twice. someone on the Physical grafitti page keeps claiming that the album has sold half of what the tally is on the RIAA due to it being a double album.

Page Style

Is anyone else getting a weird style problem on the main page? this is the only entry I am getting what looks like the CSS is broken. the last change to the page was 3 days ago and it was a revert of something. I dont know enough about wikipedia to go changing anything, or maybe it is just my machine, but I looked at it through IE and FF. --Billy Nair (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mclay1!

--Billy Nair (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually thanking me or is that sarcastic? I'm not getting any weird problems with Safari. I didn't break it nor did I fix it. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no sarcasm, what ever you did or didnt do fixed my CSS or whatever was wrong.--Billy Nair (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Mystery Tour

Someone keeps on writing that Magical Mystery Tour is the album prior to The Beatles (White Album). This is not true The Beatles (White Album) is the 9th album by the Beatles and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the 8th. Magical Mystery Tour is an unofficial album please stop writing it is the album prior to The Beatles (White Album). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.81.124 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was true. But since the CD era, Magical Mystery Tour in the album format became an original Beatles album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are two categories colliding. Albums as the band saw it is one. Works of the band is another. Beethoven's symphonies / works are two categories and the symphonies are in both. As a further complication, my understanding is that MMT was released as an album in the U.S. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be useful to have a separate chronology field for non-UK release. For this album, the non-UK chronology would be MMT|White|YS. For the UK chronology, leave it SP|White|YS. MMT and SP would then add fields for non-UK releases with the complementary info. The guideline for album infoboxes suggests separate chronologies for studio or live albums, and perhaps this is a place where the idea could be useful. Any agreement with that? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The individual EMI units around the world repackaged Beatle albums so that would be too complicated. Let's concentrate on the canon albums and MMT along with the globally released post-breakup album titles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but then what about the equivocal status of MMT? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: (cur | prev) 10:13, 11 July 2011 Mclay1 (talk | contribs) (55,908 bytes) (reverting edits by 2 IPs - The Beach Boys are not a genre; just because a site says it uses a CC licence doesn't mean it does - it is illegal).

All there is legal: using of licensing and attribution of works of art, fair use, the content directory of Creative Commons. This is all on the same basis that makes Youtube, Vimeo and other sites. You think that they violate copyright? All the same pattern (even better), so I ask you to delete your roll back. Confirmation of the rule of law is non-interference Copyright Office of the United States (link to their website is at beatles1). This is the most reliable guarantor. Absolutelly no problem. Be an honest man ! A copy of messages on the discussion page (Mclay1) . Important: the site has a mirror - http://beatles80.narod2.ru . ----93.81.188.69 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before this degenerates into a completely uninformed and irrelevant debate about copyright law, be aware this external link simply doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion regardless of any claims of fair use. Read Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided and find some other way to drive traffic to your web site. Piriczki (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The Beatles (album) → The White Album – It looks like this has been discussed a few times but never formally proposed. In most cases, works will have the same WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. This is one of the rare cases where it is not. The White Album is far more commonly used by fans, music observers, and even members of the band and I see no reason to ignore WP:COMMONNAME here. It also eliminates the parenthetical disambiguation, which some people find unsightly. The White Album already redirects here so that is not a problem. I am open to other suggestions as well. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. As the nom said, this album is by far most well-known as "The White Album". The other point, about disambiguation, is also a good one. Why disambiguate when there is a natural, accurate, better-known alternative? Dohn joe (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - we've had this discussion before. The official name in 'The Beatles'. What ever it's known as informally is irrelevant; this is an encyclopedia article about the album. The White Album already redirects here, so finding the article is no problem. Radiopathy •talk• 00:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is an encyclopedia, and the policy of this encyclopedia is generally to use a topic's common name, which is not necessarily its official name. "The White Album" follows the policies of this encyclopedia. (Note: while specific conventions can sometimes trump the common-name policy, in this case, the music convention does not address whether to use common or official names.) Dohn joe (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There has been no discussion, so I reserve my rights, but the Wikipedia policy is not ambiguous and it says that the common name should be used. This encyclopedia has a style guide that should be followed by its editors. There is a guide for how to handle this kind of situation and there's nothing about it that is difficult or misleading. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common usage is not a reliable source. Just because I refer to it as 'The White Album' has no bearing on what its title in an encyclopedia should be. The Beatles meant for it to be titled a certain way; we defer to their judgement. Radiopathy •talk• 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much RS (including Amazon.com and the members of the band) refer to it as The White Album. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon is NOT a reliable source! Neither are The Beatles since they generally don't give interviews in an academic style of writing. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to rely on what the band meant just so long as you can reject what the band says? Brilliant!! (Two exclams wins.) Obviously, it doesn't work both ways. Of the two, it's easier to know what the band said than what they meant. Secondly, academic style is not the bedrock of reliability in sources. Nice try!!! Bottom line, the policy is unambiguous: the common name is called for, not the official name. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is actually not unambiguous. No policy is (see my long comment below). But if we are taking the Beatles' word on it, then we go with The Beatles since that's what they titled it, not The White Album. And the members of the band are actually not reliable sources unless they officially change the title of the album. In the end, this is what is being called for, to change the title of the album. freshacconci talktalk 14:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, of course. What's being called for is a change to the title of an article about an album, in order to make that title more natural and recognizable to readers. Wikipedia has no power to change the actual title of the album. Dohn joe (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But we are in effect telling readers that that is the title. People are missing the bigger picture by rigidly adhering to WP:COMMONNAME. Those not familiar with the album will think the title is The White Album. freshacconci talktalk 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; "The White Album" is far more recognizable to the reader and thus better satisfies the criteria at WP:AT. Powers T 01:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, clearly the most common name. Jenks24 (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The "White Album" is just a nickname for The Beatles. It seems much more appropriate for an encyclopaedia to use an official name if the official name is commonly used, which is the case here. WP:COMMONNAME does not say "Always use the most common name"; the policy mostly applies the things with uncommon official names. WP:COMMONNAME says to use the common name used in reliable sources, not everyday speech. Reliable sources about The Beatles, such as Mark Lewisohn's books and Revolution in the Head, refer to it as The Beatles. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the policy actually does say "Always use the most common name." More precisely, it says, Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The policy doesn't say, "ignore when you feel like it." It says, in essence, this is our style.
Except it we do have the WP:IGNORE policy. We can ignore a rule if it gets in the way of common sense. freshacconci talktalk 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fourth Led Zeppelin album has no title at all. In this instance, yes, WP:COMMONNAME should apply for the convenience of the reader; however, the 'White Album does have a title, and that title is The Beatles. The Beatles (the members of the band of that name), BTW, are not reliable sources. Radiopathy •talk• 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Beatles (the members of the band of that name), BTW, are not reliable sources." That's why I said "I don't think deferring to the band's judgment has anything to do with this." Someone else (i.e., you) said above: "The Beatles meant for it to be titled a certain way; we defer to their judgement." and my comment was a comment regarding this suggestion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per McLerristarr. WP:COMMONNAME does not trump WP:RS. The official title and the most reliable sources favour The Beatles. This should be a non-starter. We can't alter the official name of an entity. We redirect White Album to The Beatles (album) and make mention of the common nickname for the album in the second sentence. This is appropriate per both WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME per McLerristarr's reasoning above. Bottom line: by retitling this as The White Album we are actually telling the uninformed reader that that is the title of the album. It's not and it never has been. freshacconci talktalk 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the book The Beatles Anthology all four Beatles refer to it as the 'White' album. Piriczki (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because that is the accepted nickname for the LP. No one is disputing that. Have the Beatles or Apple officially changed the title of the album? I'm referring to RSs that deal with the album as an album not anecdotally, Lewisohn and MacDonald. The Anthology was based on conversations. We're not trying to erase The White Album as an alternative title. We're sticking to the fact that it is officially titled The Beatles and the RSs and the official discography back that up. Even our own discography of the Beatles lists it as The Beatles. freshacconci talktalk 13:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, because that's the title. But our article naming guidelines explicitly prefer that we use a common name if it's more recognizable than the official name. Powers T 13:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the RSs back it up. Reliable sources when discussing it as an album tend to defer to the proper title and using The White Album only casually, if at all. Revolution in the Head for instance explicitly uses The Beatles. Changing the article title is basically changing the album title. This is not a case of Ringo Starr being preferred to Richard Starkey. We will be basically telling readers that The White Album is the title, which would then contradict our own Beatles discography. Having the redirect and using the alternate title in the lede is appropriate for this instance. In the case of official titles we must follow RSs and use the proper name. We're not changing Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to Sgt. Peppers because that is the more common name (and I'd wager it is). The same principle applies here. freshacconci talktalk 13:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where the common name is merely an abbreviation or modification of the official name, yes, we do tend to prefer the full version (but not always! See Rhode Island). But that's exactly what makes Sgt. Pepper different from The White Album. Powers T 13:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also want to say (as a final thought before moving on) that we shouldn't be using any policy as a club. In other words "because WP:COMMONNAME says so" should not be the default argument. There needs to be nuance in the reading of that policy and all policies have exceptions, thus WP:IGNORE. The purpose and use of WP:COMMONNAME is to provide us with a backup when facing a pedantic editor insisting that since Ringo was born Richard Starkey, the latter should be the article title. His stage name is clear and all sources support that. It's pretty straight-forward and WP:COMMONNAME is a great tool to use to counter such arguments. However, I feel this is an excellent example of when we should not so much ignore the rule of common names but understand the nuances actually provided. I don't have time to do a thorough search, but I am certain most encyclopedias use The Beatles as the title and WP:COMMONNAME suggests we consult other encyclopedias when considering what an article title should be. Likewise, we must consult other reliable sources. Yes, there is a mixed bag of usages out there but my feeling is that those sources that deal with the album in a critical manner, such as Lewisohn and Revolution in the Head should be given more weight on this issue as the other sources are often anecdotal (such as the Anthology which is based on interviews). When dealing with a work of art, WP:COMMONNAME should usually apply (pre-20th century book titles come to mind here; The Origin of the Species is obviously preferable to its official title). However there are always exceptions and we can't forget we are here to provide tertiary information. We have to imagine that our reader is someone who has never heard of this album. Going to an article titled The White Album is telling that reader that this is the official title and we are therefore failing in our efforts. Redirecting The White Album and explaining in the lede that The White Album is the common nickname of the article (and we can move that even closer per Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by placing The White Album in parenthesis) is providing the reader with accurate information, which is our job. Anyway, I'm done. Apologies in advance for going on and on about it. freshacconci talktalk 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Talk to anyone except the most hardened The Beatles fan about The Beatles, and they will immediately think of the band. With more context that it's an album, you're likely to get a blank look, followed by the question "which one". Say 'The White Album", and people will light up immediately. OTOH, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is probably more commonly referred to as simply 'Sgt. Pepper'--Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that's exactly the point. We are not writing for the most hardened fan who knows what the real title is. We are writing, as I said, for the uninformed reader. Calling the article The White Album is telling the reader that this is the title of the album. The simpler and more neutral option is to keep it as is. We clearly state that The White Album is the common nickname and provide a redirect for those searching for The White Album. We are supposed to provide information here. freshacconci talktalk 18:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are WP:RSs. freshacconci talktalk 20:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave some blank space on top of the article to honor the original non-title. Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider these reliable sources:
Dohn joe (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of them call it "White Album" and not "The White Album". The noun is used as an adjective. That means it is a nickname for this album, by fans for example.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a word: no. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? Dohn joe (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously they are problems. Of course, there might be an argument that those obvious problems should be overlooked, but they are problems. The strange thing here is that this is just about the clearest example we will see where the common name policy comes into play. We all know the official name is The Beatles and we all know that reliable sources and the public at large call it The White Album. So, what does policy advise? Well, we all know what it says: use the common name. It doesn't suggest it, it says that's what Wikipedia editors do. I am sympathetic to the view that official names should be used and would be fine with that if Wikipedia went with that style. But that is not the case. A different decision was made, and there's no violation of common sense involved. It's just one of those issues of style that a good editor maintains because that is what a good editor does. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest reading WP:COMMONNAME again. "It doesn't suggest it, it says that's what Wikipedia editors do." Not true. We must follow what reliable sources say. WP:COMMONNAME clearly states this. We all know everyone uses The White Album? Too bad. We don't edit by what we all know. We edit uses sources. This is a debate around sources: "we all know that reliable sources ... call it The White Album." Again, not accurate. Most sources properly call it The Beatles. WP:COMMONNAME is not that straightforward. And this is a question of common sense as this is a good example of an exception to the rule. freshacconci talktalk 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, the sources that refer to it as The White Album are more numerous. What the album was sold as is not probative. Secondly, you claim this policy is not unambiguous (even going so far as to claim incredibly that "no policy is") but you haven't mentioned what is ambiguous about it. You seem to be aware that the common name should be used, but you want to claim that The Beatles is the common name. That's not an ambiguity in the policy. In this brief clip, Paul says "it's the bloody Beatles' White Album -- shut up." --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"First, the sources that refer to it as The White Album are more numerous." Really? You know that for a fact? "What the album was sold as is not probative." I mention that because it was claimed erroneously that it was sold as The White Album. The policy is malleable per WP:IGNORE, which is also policy, but explicitly because we should only go by what the sources say, not by what "everyone" says. My argument is that the sources available, the best and most reliable ones, call it The Beatles. Unless Apple officially changes the title, what Paul says in an interview carries as much weight as anyone else with an opinion.freshacconci talktalk 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know it for a fact. The reason that no one refers to it as 'The Beatles' is that it doesn't refer to the album, it refers to the band. (2) It's incredible that you want to ignore the band's own words. But what else can you do? When the christening of the album was done by the band, if they don't agree with you, that puts a black hole in your argument. There is no more reliable source than the band. I'm sorry. Your wish to rely on official actions is not Wikipedia policy. Explicitly, you are trying to overrule the policy, but that can't be done on this page. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can I argue with someone who says "Yes, I know it for a fact"?!? Seriously, you're going to stand by that opinion? It is not a fact and no one would or should ever make that claim. As for the band's own words, no they are not a reliable source in and of themselves, any more than Paul McCartney editing his own article would be. We go by sources, not someone's word. What we can rely on is the Beatles' original intention and Apple's official discography which is to call the album The Beatles. And I have no idea what you're talking about when you claim I am trying to change official policy. Where, exactly? I am going by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:IGNORE here. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly tells us that we must rely on reliable sources. We can't just go by "The reason that no one refers to it as 'The Beatles' is that it doesn't refer to the album, it refers to the band". That's an opinion, not a fact. The phrase "The Beatles" in fact refers to both the band and the album. And many, many sources, some of which we rely on to fact-check articles (Lewisohn, Revolution in the Head, allmusic.com) use The Beatles as the album's title. Because that's what it is. We disambiguate this page with (album) to make the distinction. WP:COMMONNAME tells us to use the most common name when the sources back it up. This is why there is an article called Jennifer Lopez and not J.Lo. We have to make this call based on the sources. Likewise, it is Ringo Starr not Richard Starkey. These two examples show the interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME that is required using sources. There are sources that use The White Album. I have never disputed that. I am saying the sources for The Beatles are stronger and more authoritative. This is what this debate is about, which sources to follow. freshacconci talktalk 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to counter my argument. The easiest counter would be to offer the examples of the members of the band (the christeners) referring to the White Album as 'The Beatles'. But no one does that, because 'The Beatles' refers to the band, not the album. (2) You are trying to change policy by ignoring it: you claim that Apple can change the name of the album, but that would only be the case if we followed "official naming" instead of common naming. However, we don't. We follow common names. If you want to change that policy, go to the page where the policy is made. It's really pretty incredible at this point in the discussion to have you claim that Apple can change the name for our purposes. Apple has no authority in this matter. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? My only point about Apple is that Apple's official title is and always has been The Beatles. I made no claim that the official name trumps all. In fact, elsewhere I point out examples of pre-20th books that have insanely long titles that we shorten for article titles. I have no objection to this. Likewise, I point out the Beatles' own choice of The Beatles to show that this is the proper title. I am not calling for changing any policy and you have yet to show me where I have done so. I am pointing out that WP:COMMONNAME calls for sources. I have not suggested we change that nor that WP:COMMONNAME should be official titles only. You are putting words into my mouth and then arguing against what you claim I am saying. Likewise: "It's really pretty incredible at this point in the discussion to have you claim that Apple can change the name for our purposes." Where exactly did I say this? We follow common names per WP:COMMONNAME when the sources back this up. Sources at this point show usage of both The Beatles and The White Album. My argument is that the official title counts as a source as it is backed up essentially by Apple, as one of many sources. It is not exclusive, it does not trump all other sources. I am not making that claim and do not suggest otherwise. It is a dishonest way to debate. My argument is: we should follow the source which I feel favour those that use The Beatles. No policy is to be changed and there is no suggestion of changing policy. Do not suggest otherwise. freshacconci talktalk 14:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about what you said. And, while you want to deny it now, you said that we should rely on "Apple's official discography". But official names are not what we follow. So, I said nothing dishonest. Rather, I countered your erroneous claim, off the which you are now backing. Good. I agree we don't follow Apple's official anything. In that case, we return to your claim that the band is not a reliable source on the name of their own album, which I think has very little traction. Perhaps you can offer other examples of artists where their reference to their own works is ignored in the pages of Wikipedia? That would be a good point of comparison. The first case that comes to mind is Prince, from the period where his name was that symbol. His wishes were honored. It seems that ordinarily the band's words are highly probative for these purposes. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You again are putting words into my mouth and then arguing against what you are claiming I said. That is a dishonest way of debating. I have officially had it with you and will move on since you have no intention of discussing things without distortions. I clearly state that the official title is one source amongst many. Don't twist things around. That's all I will say to you on this thread. freshacconci talktalk 15:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So when you can't answer a criticism you make accusations and refuse to talk any more? Where I come from that's called surrender. I have answered your claims and explained why I think you're wrong. If you don't want to do that, I think that's an admission that you can't support your argument. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's so official about this title anyway? This album has been sold under various names, but never as The Beatles (album). This dispute arises because the album was originally released without a title, but I assume that we will put something or other on top of the article. In so many RMs, there seems to be a group of editors who look down on the common name precisely because it is so common. Kauffner (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, let's try some WP:AGF: "there seems to be a group of editors who look down on the common name precisely because it is so common." Nothing could be further from the truth. I refer to it is the White Album all the time. Secondly, what's official about this name is that it is the official name. It has always been called The Beatles. It was never untitled. It has never been sold under any other name until Amazon came along. All sources confirm this. Many sources use The White Album as well in casual reference to the album, but let's keep the facts straight here. The Beatles' first choice for a title was A Doll's House but another band already used that, so they went with a self-titled album. It was always called The Beatles. Putting (album) after the title is a Wikipedia disambiguation and of course is standard here. freshacconci talktalk 11:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your trivia about 'A Doll's House' is not germane and you should strike it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was suggested that the album was original untitled. I pointed out in fact that this is not true. Mentioning the original idea for a title is part of that discussion. Who the hell are you to tell me what to strike? I think I've had enough of you. pal. freshacconci talktalk 14:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are mistaken. The pre-release history of the album's title is not germane to this discussion. Since it's not germane, it should go somewhere else. That is why I suggested that you take it out. If you think that it is germane, of course keep it in, but it is outside our scope here and I'd think that you would want to keep the focus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. Mine differs. freshacconci talktalk 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose the discussion in favour of one at a wider scope, at least WP:TB, perhaps WP:WPMU. Uniplex (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as The Beatles is the official title of the Album. "The White Album" is the popular name for it. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Freshacconci: I'd like to present the argument from a different angle and see what you think. You said earlier that "Sources at this point show usage of both The Beatles and The White Album." If you look at the WP:NAMING policy, it tells us that "[g]enerally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources; when this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles". Those five principles are 1) recognizability; 2) naturalness; 3) precision; 4) conciseness; and 5) consistency.

    Applying the policy here, I think we agree that reliable sources are split on what they call the subject, which means we should move to weighing the five principles. To me, the two titles are equally precise and concise. Consistency is probably the best argument for leaving the title as is, although it cuts both ways. You can say that all the other articles on Beatles albums are at their official names, so this one should be, too. However, since for the other albums official name=common name, you could just as easily say that since the other articles are at their common names, this one should be, too.

    Even allowing that point, it's outweighed in my opinion by the fact that "The White Album" is by far more 1) recognizable and 2) natural. The policy asks what readers would expect to look for when searching for a topic. Isn't that "The White Album", hands down?

    Anyhow, that's how I weigh the principles - how do you (or anyone else) see them? Dohn joe (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "The White Album" is NOT the official title of the album. The official title of the album is The Beatles. 17:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Just about everyone (including me) agrees with that. But again, Wikipedia does not always use official names to title articles. Please read WP:OFFICIAL for one explanation why. Dohn joe (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then what does the album cover say is the title of the album? It does not say "The White Album" anywhere on the cover or the record/CD labels. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on the use of common names says that Wikipedia prefers common names to official names. That is actually the policy. In this brief clip, Paul says "it's the bloody Beatles' White Album -- shut up." --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone uses the popular name for this album, so Paul's quote is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the record label shows at [1]. Case closed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's incorrect. Read the policy. Wikipedia prefers common names to official names. That is the policy. It's not the policy you said, it's something else. The common mane trumps the official name, not the other way around. So if a good editor is choosing between the common name and the official name, Wikipedia style guide says choose the common name. We don't choose the official name. We choose the common name. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a bit to re-find this. I think WP:POVTITLE applies in this case, not WP:COMMONNAME or WP:OFFICIALNAME. - Salamurai (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. How do you see using The White Album as violating the neutral point of view policy? What about it is non-neutral? Dohn joe (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name include the following:...2. Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious." Further, "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to."
The actual, official title trumps the colloquialism; the redirect takes care of "first guesses". Sorted. Radiopathy •talk• 23:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that's only when the colloquialism violates the neutral point of view policy. That's why those provisions are in the "Non-neutral but common names" section - they're describing an exception to the general rule at WP:COMMONNAME, which prefers the common over the official name when they are different. Dohn joe (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's the wrong policy. (There are a lot of policies and I don't know them all.) The part I was thinking of was "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to." So the redirect already anticipates The White Album and takes the reader to the correct article, and nothing else need be done. (I also didn't read every single comment here before, I see there are other policies in play and maybe I should shut my fool mouth.) - Salamurai (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The official title is the neutral solution; the redirect brings readers who are using the colloquialism to the article. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a problem with this arrangement, except in one case of a consensus-flouting editor who is now banned. Dragging out a page move discussion for far longer than is necessary, on the other hand, especially when consensus is clear and no problem exists with the title of the article, could be construed as POV pushing and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Radiopathy •talk• 23:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this new consensus-flouting editor will be banned, Radiopathy? I looked up his talk page and he has been suspended from editing more than once. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? CWenger? Ring Cinema? Dohn joe? Please explain yourself. Radiopathy •talk• 13:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Ring Cinema is the most disruptive. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're not edit warring here; I don't think that should have come up. Radiopathy •talk• 14:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This attempt to short circuit the discussion is disruptive, presumptuous, question-begging, and inaccurate. I don't think a call for a simplistic discussion encourages the best decisions. To me, that kind of superficiality is an endemic problem on the site. It's true that there has been POV pushing by the opponents of this proposal, but it's clear that all views need to be aired. I'm sure there would be no problem with the title either way, so that's a red herring. The question is about following Wikipedia style. Why other editors want to disrupt that with arguments that openly advocate flouting policy is a question they will have to answer. The neutral solution clearly is the one that follows the policy and that would entail adopting the proposal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions to the policy; they have been pointed out to you, and they apply here. The neutral solution is to use the actual, real, official, honest-to-God, Beatle-approved title and not to use Wikipedia policy to create an alternative reality. Radiopathy •talk• 14:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know of a legitimate reason to make this an exception to the policy, and my mind is open to that. As you say, you want to use the official title. I agree, that's what you want to use. Unfortunately, that is not Wikipedia policy. But you claim that this is an exception, which it could be. Since the Beatles themselves refer to the album as the White Album, I am on very solid ground, as they are the same christeners that you want to invoke on your side. I don't see how that's a winner for you. Still, my mind is open. Please explain why this case is a legitimate exception. Clearly that needs to be discussed. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had already stated that the White Album is the popular name for the 1968 album The Beatles which is used by everyone. It is still not the official name as the White Album name never appeared on record or CD labels. The redirect and hatnotes which are the already in place is the aforementioned solution to this issue. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until you read the policy and explain how you are following it, Steel, I will stick with your admission below that you are not following it. However, Radiopathy is arguing from within the policy so I am interested in what he has to say. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A problematic case of conflicting WP:TITLE principles, but I think the far greater recognisability of the proposed title tips things in its favour. NoeticaTea? 06:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - Classic case of where the common name trumps the official name. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move The current title is precise, concise, and consistent. The proposed title is recognizable, natural, and concise. Therefore, there is no reason to move to a different title which only meets the same number of naming criteria that the current title does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always respected your contributions, Sarek. But let me ask you: wouldn't both titles be equally precise? Both "The Beatles (album)" and "The White Album" refer to exactly the same album. (And indeed, "The White Album" is more precise than just "The Beatles", which is why we have to add the qualifier "(album)".) Which leads to my other question. Given that this "The White Album" is the primary topic for that term, how much does removing a disambiguator from the title matter in your thinking? Dohn joe (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While this article is the primary topic for "The White Album", The White Album (disambiguation) shows that this isn't the only topic for the title. I don't know of any other album called "The Beatles", so I would consider "The Beatles (album)" to be more precise than "The While Album".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understand your point there (although I disagree). But how about removing a disambiguator from the title? If two competing titles are otherwise equal on naming criteria, shouldn't the scales tip towards the non-disambiguated one? Dohn joe (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I said above, they're not quite equal on precision, so it's weighted differently. I'm just not sure _how_ differently. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I meant that the titles were equal since you considered that each title met three of the naming critieria. Given that kind of equality, how does removing a disambiguator fit in your calculus? Dohn joe (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarek proposes that we choose based on a five point checklist. That could be an excellent method to decide between common names and official names, but I don't think that's what the policy calls for. It seems that common names are preferred as the default style in the relevant policy, while the five points are called for when choosing within the domain of common names. Cf. Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton) or the Venus de Milo (not Aphrodite of Milos), where the common name is used instead of the official name as given at its christening. This case seems to be the same. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, those are the WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, period. Not for choosing within common names.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They are, as long as you prefer common names over official names. By analogy, if we must eat fruits, there can be five criteria for choosing the particular fruit but we can't choose broccoli even though it's edible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Sarek. WP:COMMONNAME is a section within WP:NAMING, and it comes right after WP:CRITERIA. They should be read together. The common name(s) will quite often best satisfy the criteria, but not always. Dohn joe (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They should be read together, but it's clear that common names are preferred to official names. If that were not the case, the section on common names would be superfluous and the policy would simply consist in applying the five criteria. Or perhaps the bit about common names would be the sixth criterion. However, that is not the policy and common names are preferred. From that, one can see that common names are preferred, but if there is more to consider than simply the issue of common/official names, then the five criteria come into play. So of course the five criteria are very important, but in those cases where editors choose between the official name and the common name, the policy is clear that the common name carries the day. The stronger argument for the opposition in the case we are discussing is to hold that the official name is also the common name, as, for example, Freshacconci has argued above. Then the five criteria come into play. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But if you ask people "What is the name of the Beatles album released in 1968" how big a percentage do you think would say "The Beatles" compared to those who answer "The White Album"? Honestly, I think everyone would say "The White Album" except for a small percentage of music nerds who would say "The album is officially called 'The Beatles', as it has no title, but it is generally known as 'The White Album'". Everyone calls it "The White Album". It is as such recognizable, natural and concise, as you say. But it is also precise and consistent. When you say "The White Album" with no further specification, people will assume you mean this album. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But if you look at TheBeatles.com listing for this album, the title is The Beatles as shown at [2] which mentions the better known nickname "The White album" but it still gives the album title as The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the liner notes of the Yellow Submarine album gives a review of this album and the review titles the album The Beatles and there is no mention of the White Album. One URL which reproduces the liner notes is at [3]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The White Album

Irrelevant to the move discussion, how should we display the name "The White Album" in the article? Should it be italicised? Should it be in quotation marks? Should the italics or quotes include the "The"? Should "The" be capitalised? At the moment, in the lead, it is in quotes and italicised, with a capital "The" included in both (i.e. "The White Album"). Since it is not actually a title, just a nickname, do we really need italics? As a nickname, I'd say we do need the quotes. I'd also say that "The" should not be included in the quotes or capitalised (i.e. the "White Album"). A similar situation would be referring to the fictitious John Smith as the "Lion-man", rather than "The Lion-man". Both are acceptable but which is better? McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Unreferenced opinion follows) The album title should be capitalised but not italicised. It is the name of a work but not a title. A bit like (as some might appreciate) the Bible. —  AjaxSmack  22:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "The White Album" is not the official title so it should be mentioned in the article exactly as shown here with no italics and/or boldface. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the first time "The White Album" appears in the article, it should be bolded, as it's a synonym, and more importantly, it's the common name by which most people know the album. See Wikipedia:Lead#Opening_paragraph. As to italicization or quotes, I have no opinion, although I should think it ought to be one or the other - not both. Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Digression not directly relevant to the question posed at the beginning of the section
Once again, "The White Album" is NOT the official title of this album. The official title is The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your interpretation of the policy. It seems to me that you haven't read the policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is irrelevant here. Look at the record labels. Such as the MFSL/Capitol audiophile label at [4], an Italian Apple pressing at [5], A Parlophone UK pressing at [6], the purple Capitol label at [7], an American Apple pressing at [8] and a French Apple pressing at [9] to give examples. Nowhere on these labels do you see "The White Album" mentioned. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is irrelevant? What on earth are you talking about? We are discussing how to apply the policies of Wikipedia. Although I don't agree with Freshacconci above, I endorse completely that he argues on the basis of policy. If you think only the label's opinion matters, you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, but it's just that simple. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, Ring Cinema. What does the record label say? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument, I believe, is that we can ignore Wikipedia policy and just read the label discography. Can you accurately give my argument? I don't think you can. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The prevailing consensus is the official title of the album is the title of the article. You are the one who is pushing it. Consensus trumps policy in this case. Also, you did not answer my question. What is the title on the record labels? Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steelbeard1: From [[10]]:
If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance.

Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), also known as lye and caustic soda, is ...

The text "The White Album" is such an additional name. Policy is dead clear on this, I have no idea what you are on about. Nobody is claiming that "The White Album" is the official name. OK?
Ring Cinema: When somebody has misunderstood something, try to figure out what the misunderstanding is, instead of trying to misrepresent what they say. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Steelbeard above claims that "consensus trumps policy". I will accept that as a concession that he agrees with me that I am following policy and he is not. Sounds good. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to refer to the Talk:ABN AMRO debacle of a few years back? The official name of the financial institution is ABN AMRO in all-capital letters, but some editors insisted on "ABN Amro" as the name of the article, leading to quite an edit war. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of WP:IAR? Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which rules do you think you're ignoring? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable sources" which use an erroneous name as the actual name (e.g. "ABN Amro") rather than the official legal name ABN AMRO for the financial institution in question. In this context, the official name of the album is The Beatles and not the popular alternate name "The White Album." Nowhere on the record or CD label of any configuration of this album is it identified as "The White Album." ¿Comprende? Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus trumps policy?

Speaking as someone uninvolved in this dispute but merely observing how it plays out, the statement "consensus trumps policy" is an interesting argument. Where does the Wikipedia:Consensus policy suggest that? All I see is that consensus should be grounded in policy, because Wikipedia policy is the prevailing consensus. See in particular WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. A possible exception would be when policy contradicts common sense, but I don't see that as the real issue here.

If you want policy changed, the place to do that is over at Wikipedia:Village pump.

And by the way, for the purpose of closing the debate (which I came here prepared to do, but decided to wait a bit) I see no consensus emerging in the discussion above, unless some of the supporters have changed their mind without striking their comments. The participants are almost evenly split. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "voting"; consensus is achieved by persuasively arguing for or against a particular change. It is not about tallying up the number of "Support"s and "Oppose"s and declaring a "winner" from the majority. If you have the ability to close a discussion such as this one, you should already know that. Radiopathy •talk• 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of that, but that's beside the main point regarding the notion than consensus trumps policy. I see nobody being persuaded, except for one vocal participant who agreed to accept that consensus may be against him. That isn't grounds for closure. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, who is that participant? I took a brief scan back through the discussion, and didn't see it. Dohn joe (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See comment by Ring Cinema above this section. But on second look I guess I am misinterpreting the comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening 'graph

I must say that the stuff about A Doll's House seems an extremely trivial issue to put in the opening paragraph. Shouldn't the focus be on the music? Kauffner (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should be pushed down in to the article body. However, it's not clear where to put it at the moment; it seems the article is somewhat in need of an overhaul—perhaps the efforts spent arguing above might be better spent trying to get this article to GA status? Uniplex (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles_(album)&oldid=446443155"