Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Songs and singles category

Something which has bothered me a little in the past - whether to have seperate categories for songs and singles (which, in the case of most artists on Wikipedia, are usually wholly or mostly the same) - is up for discussion at Categories for Deletion. I'm posting a heads-up here as The Beatles are mentioned several times; with the thought being that they are one group for whom having both categories is reasonable. The discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Singles_by_artist_into_Songs_by_artist. --kingboyk 09:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I myself don't really see the value in separate articles for 45s... the categories seem harmless enough I guess. ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally think we really should have a separate page for singles. In most cases, I'd fully support deleting such a page, but in the case of The Beatles, there are many famous/noteworthy songs that were officially released only as singles. One of the more memorable Beatles songs is "Day Tripper", which as one can verify, is not on any of The Beatles' thirteen studio albums. In this case, there's a large number of songs that without a singles page, will only be accessible from the giant list of Beatles songs, where they are mixed with songs released on the albums. --RandomPrecision 23:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RandomPrecision. Singles releases by The Beatles were events, reported in the media of the time, as much as the albums - and many were notable for the sales and such (as when three consecutive releases made No.1 in the UK singles chart). All this info would properly be within an article for the relevant single. I will take a look at the discussion, if it hasn't closed.LessHeard vanU 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles categories were excluded this time but we might get targetted in a future nomination. The person doing the deletion nomination is aware of our Project and our concerns, and I've asked that we be consulted - I trust from the foregoing that we will be. --kingboyk 21:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you'll get consulted. Basically, only the Beach Boys and this group are so carefully organized. I'd like to propose the following: that we come up with a way to sort these songs in such a way that is Beatles (or Beach Boys)-specific, and doesn't encourage other users to make category:Britney Spears B-sides. What that is I'm not sure, but it's worth discussing.--Mike Selinker 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought of a compromise: What if the B-sides and singles categories get merged, but at the top of category:Beatles songs is the infobox which shows all the singles and B-sides? It's not like the number of those is going to change, after all. So a user going to the songs category would be presented with all the singles and B-sides first, then have her choice of songs thereafter. Anyone like that idea?--Mike Selinker 05:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad solution, but if you're going to "allow" us to be an exception why not just let us keep both categories? :) (genuine question). --kingboyk 12:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember using the word "allow". Of course, it's entirely possible that both categories will be kept, because a number of users wanted us to consider making exceptions for a few categories. If so, though, only the Beatles and perhaps the Beach Boys will have this categorization scheme if the current nomination passes. Maybe okay, maybe not okay. In my opinion, it's better to come up with something very specific to the Beatles, or to use structures that all such categories have. But that's just my opinion.--Mike Selinker 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually a little surprised that the "B sides" category isn't unique to us :) Obviously there are other edits as anal as me! My point, though, was that if we were to be an exception and get to keep "The Beatles singles" category, I'd prefer it if we kept "The Beatles B-sides" too. (And perhaps "The Beatles album tracks"). Anyway, thanks for coming over here I hope we can continue the dialogue and that some other editors will chip in too. --kingboyk 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the heads-up on the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. All other groups except the Beach Boys have been merged to (X) songs. Nothing has been decided yet, so chime in there.--Mike Selinker 06:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On: tagging song articles about songs the Beatles covered...

...why?

Is "Please Mr. Postman" truly within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject for the sole reason that they recorded a (admittedly minor) version of it? That doesn't seem sensible to me. --FuriousFreddy 22:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's well within our Project scope I would have thought. However, it might be more in the scope of another Project. At some point probably "turf" for WikiProjects will have to be addressed, but right now many articles get claimed by more than one project. --kingboyk 09:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Radha Krshna Temple

>>Radha Krishna Temple (NB, I suspect this may be a blue link somewhere, i.e. an article on this organisation) (1 link)

I think the link you're looking for is International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

Scolaire 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Probable and plausible (ISKON of course George worked with; the article mention that Radha is Krishna's female counterpart), but something a bit more concrete would be great. If they're certainly one and the same, Radha Krishna Temple could be added to Category:Apple Records recording artists and redirected to International Society for Krishna Consciousness. It would be great to get another red link crossed off, but I don't want to do that unless certain. (And if International Society for Krishna Consciousness is Apple's Radha Krishna Temple we'll need to get a mention into that article. Currently it doesn't even mention George). --kingboyk 08:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Doing some research on the web I've come up with what I believe is the answer. The Radha Krshna Temple (note spelling) at 7 Bury Place, London was the original headquarters of the ISKCON movement in the UK and was founded late 60's or 1970 (the movement only began in 1966). An Apple album (SAPCOR 18) Radha Krsna Temple by Radha Krsna Temple was released in 1970 see Apple Records discography. This press release details the album release. More details of the album are available here and. here. A detailed desciption on George's involvement in the 'movement' is available here. This may be sufficient info for an article on its own? simonthebold 20:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I'd say an article on the Radha Krsna Temple detailing the Apple releases and George's involvement with them would be wonderful. We have a picture of the album and some sources (but be careful with these sources as none of them are high quality). Citations can be added using <ref>, and a section added to the ISKCON article with {{main}}. If you'd like to start the article I'm happy to provide copy editing, categorisation and templating services! --kingboyk 13:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a request for assistance and/or further info at Talk:International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Radha_Krsna_Temple_on_Apple_Records, and asked for replies here. --kingboyk 13:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea for an article. The Radha and Krishna deities from the original Bury place temple are now in the ISKCON temple on Soho Square in London. They are known as 'Radha-Londonishvara'. That's where the 'Radha Krsna Temple' name came from. I'll see what info I dig out for the main page. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Radha Krsna Temple. Apple Records collectors/experts please help by filling in the section on the Apple album. --kingboyk 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:John & Yoko albums

I don't like this (relatively new) category as it adds an extra navigational layer: somebody in Category:John Lennon will have to click through two categories to find, say, Two Virgins.

I'd like to either:

• Delete that new category and move all articles in it to Category:John Lennon albums and Category:Yoko Ono albums

or

• Retain the category but copy all articles to Category:John Lennon albums and Category:Yoko Ono albums

I prefer the former but before I go nominate it for deletion I'd like to know what others think. Perhaps it's a good category and I'm wrong, so speak up. --kingboyk 13:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Former. And nom the cat for deletion. ++Lar: t/c 11:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lar. I'll do that, although there's no guarantee of course that the folks at WP:CFD will agree :) --kingboyk 11:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_5#Category:John_.26_Yoko_albums_to_Category:John_Lennon_albums_and_Category:Yoko_Ono_albums --kingboyk 13:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted

We are migrating from the old article classification (and comment) system we used to use to the new WP 1.0 system of classification. The last thing to be migrated (the ratings and importances already are migrated) are the comments. We could use some help with this. If you have some time to pitch in please do. See Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Article Classification/Migratingfor instructions. Feedback on instructions welcomed! ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Thenewno2

I've fixed it now, but any idea why kingboyk's edit to that talk page (circa May 26, 2006) using AWB changed the wikicode from a template inclusion to a link when it changed the name? I checked the edits directly before and after it, and they didn't seem to have a problem with it. It's hardly relevant now, anyway, but while you're reading this, you may as well check out the band. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No idea. How strange. I hope that was a one off!

Your article doesn't have any categories. It also needs a stub template. --kingboyk 09:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not my article, I just happened across it. It needs a lot of stuff. I'll see what I can do. Do we have a list of our categories somewhere? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't guarantee it's up to date: WP:TBC. --kingboyk 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I came across that afterwards, but it didn't look like anything applied. I've added Category:Dhani Harrison, but that doesn't actually exist. Any other suggestions? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything hugely suitable so the stub cat Category:United Kingdom rock musical group stubs will have to do for now. Dhani doesn't warrant a category yet, but of course if his band make an impact they'll get their own/he'll get his own category at a later date. Let it be, in other words :) --kingboyk 12:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be so keen on the archiving!

You archived a long thread of mine from June 22nd which hasn't got any answers yet. If a thread might reasonably be still active or, on a slow talk page as this now is, is recent and not been replied to please don't archive it! Thanks. --kingboyk 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize this was a slow talk page. June 17 and June 22 are long past already. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And I was actually more worried about whether or not I should archive the "Love Me Do" thread, as it was only from June 29. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be archiving when threads are at least 2 months old, or the page is crowded, or the threads are "spent" (answered, finalised). But, hey, please forgive my grouchiness I don't want to discourage you from doing the job, I should be thanking you really :) --kingboyk 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Kansas City

The article relevant to our purposes was moved a while ago from Kansas City (song) to Kansas City (R&B song). I just went through and disambiguated most of the pages that think there incorrectly. However, I'm not especially familiar the workings of our classification system and whatnot, so I don't know what to do about those links. I changed one of them somewhere, but that may have incorrect. I'll leave it in your hands to take care of the links in the classification area. Just keep in mind that our article is now Kansas City (R&B song) and that Kansas City (song) is now a disambig page for three different songs. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Song template

Can we include the following template in our templates section? Someone else made it, and I have been using it for Beatles songs.

"SONG NAME"
ALBUM NAME
Song by The Beatles
From the album ALBUM NAME
Album released	RELEASE DATE
Recorded	RECORDING DATES
Genre	Rock
Song Length	LENGTH
Record label	LABEL
Producer	PRODUCER
ALBUM NAME Album Listing
PREVIOUS SONG NAME (Track #)	SONG NAME (Track #)	NEXT SONG NAME (Track #)

Great. Do it. (You don't need permission, of course!)LessHeard vanU 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles trivia

It looks like the deletion discussion came to no consensus. That's a shame. That page looks nothing like the page it was created to be. It's now all jumbled up, with a bunch of little "mini-articles" providing the content of the page, essentially verbatim from the original article. In fact, someone recently deleted an entire section of Free as a Bird because it was "on the trivia page". Come on, we have to do something about this. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk to Andreasegde, it is pretty much his puppy.LessHeard vanU 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the Edit link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.

:P It could certainly do with some trimming to remove less-trivial material well-covered elsewhere, or at least liberal use of the {{main}} template, but overall I think it's a really nice piece of work. It just shows that "trivia" can be collected together into a pleasant article.

The suggestion that a section of another article should be zapped because it's "on the trivia page" is just laughable and I hope you told the editor in question that! --kingboyk 07:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles under review

The Beatles is currently under featured article review. Punctured Bicycle 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles 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. Sandy 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for informing us. I'm writing a detailed reply now, but I'll summarise by saying that the article is certainly in a less than desirable state but that Wikipedia can't afford to delist such a crucial piece. Let's work together to make it definitive. --kingboyk 16:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)