Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Former featured articleThe Beatles is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleThe Beatles has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 29, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
August 29, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 5, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
April 26, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 9, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
November 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
June 3, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
Housekeeping Information

Getting the article structure right

The structure goes a bit funny in the middle of the article at one point. What do people propose about a better structure and naming for the period of history shown below? I've not shown the detail so you'll need to look at the real thing but this outline makes the point. To bear in mind when considering this question: the section currently lacks mention of the 1965 and 1966 U.S. tours, and there's been some kind of vague muttering about the Elvis bit once or twice I seem to remember (though to what effect I cannot say). 

== History ==

===Formation===
===Hamburg===
===UK chart success===
===U.S. chart success===
===Touring years===
===Studio years===
===Post-breakup===
===Anthology===
===Recent projects and developments===

== Influences ==

== Musical evolution ==

== Films ==

== Legacy ==

== Discography ==

== See also ==

== Notes ==

== References ==

== Further reading ==

== External links ==

PL290 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The format (as it is) is not good, or shite if one was honest, as it should be divided into years, or albums. They did so much in each individual year that it should be noted. The Beatles in 1966, being a prime example as a good (but not yet a GA) article, and The Beatles at The Cavern Club being a bad example. Time to stop spewing articles into the ether, and concentrate on the facts.--andreasegde (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support splitting the History section into subsections by year. I wouldn't limit all of the sections too a single year, however. The pre-fame years can probably be collapsed into a section or two, and similarly the post-breakup years don't need a section by year. They can be split into decades, perhaps. The high-activity years should have a section per year. I also wouldn't get too hung up about year boundaries. For example, The Sgt. Pepper stuff should be discussed in 1967 even though the recording sessions started at the end of 1966. Let It Be can be discussed in 1969 even though the album was released in 1970. So, I propose:
1960 and prior
1961 and 1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
I am not opposed to combing some years or grouping the early pre-fame years differently. I think the key is to make it an explicit timeline by year (or more). — John Cardinal (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support year-grouping if it can be shown to work. So I'd avocate taking this a stage further and seeing what's in each group and whether this approach presents any difficulties. (BTW Hamburg included 1960, 1961 and 1962 so would end up in two sections per the above outline.) I suggest we need at least bullet points to indicate contents of each section to give confidence that the approach will work. PL290 (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK to split up the trips to Hamburg. Each particular trip should be in one section, even if it spans the section's timespan (just pick a section).
That triggers a question: do the sub-articles have to cover the same time spans as the sections? My opinion is no. While "1960 and prior" and "1961 and 1962" are shown as two sections above, both sections could have "The Beatles - 1962 and prior" as their main article. I think one-to-one is better, but if the main article devoted to a specific section was shorter than we want, we could combine that section with the main article for the next or previous sections. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all that. Hamburg (or whatever theme we use as an example) could appear in more than one section in this article; and be covered in detail by a single sub-article—however, it may be that that sub-article would become overcluttered and lose focus if we force it to be the one place for all expanded detail pertaining to that timespan. So, using your timespans or similar for sections in this article, should we perhaps aim for a complete set of timespan sub-articles (combined where size dictates, per your comment), but also some "theme" (as opposed to timespan) sub-articles where useful (the obvious example being Hamburg)? PL290 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is bloody madness. The Beatles in Hamburg is a perfectly good article, and splitting it would confuse the situation even more. There isn't an article about the 62 trip there, because it wouldn't be long enough. It is dealt with in the main article. The confusion is the main section. The Quarrymen deals with The Cavern, Brian Epstein deals with his involvement, Beatlemania the same, so what's missing? --andreasegde (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overall structure sucks, but I don't want to participate in bloody madness, so I'll bow out and you can decide whether to leave it or change it. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, please come back, this was a misunderstanding and I for one appreciate your input and hope it will continue. Andreasedge, you asked, "What's missing?" A wet fish is what's missing! No one's suggested splitting the Hamburg article. John was talking about sections in this article. Calm down and re-read! PL290 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, PL290, I'm out. I got a reminder of why I avoid editing the main article and the other biographies and so now I'll return to defending the articles from vandalism, removing unsourced stuff, helping with citations, etc. Less drama. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike this use of years to split up the sections. A casual visitor to the article might know that the band spent time in Hamburg and that there was a period of massive success called "Beatlemania", but not know the exact years those took place. With more descriptive section titles, they'd be able to glance at the contents and jump straight to those sections, but at the moment they can't if they don't know the years.

The majority of articles on pop and classical musicians seem to use a combination of dates and descriptions: Bob Dylan, R.E.M., Björk, Blur (band), Eminem, Sonic Youth, Oasis (band), The Clash, Pink Floyd. Articles that use descriptions alone include Nirvana (band), Aretha Franklin, Run-D.M.C., Johnny Cash and Jimi Hendrix. One article (the only one I've found so far!) that uses dates alone is The Rolling Stones. --Nick RTalk 22:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion so far there's been agreement that a year split is good, but you are right about the loss of immediate navigability to main themes. They're not really one-to-one with years. For the best of both worlds, how about leaving it as it is but adding a navbox or suchlike with links to "Beatlemania" and a handful of other main themes? PL290 (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about anyone else but I don't think my navbox suggestion really cuts it. So, how about this:

  • Dispense with the "Active years" and "Pre-1960" headings;
  • Introduce four new "theme grouping" level 2s as shown below, while keeping everything else the same:
==Formation==                                 ! THEME

==Hamburg residency, and the Cavern Club==    ! THEME
===1960===
===1961–1962===

==Beatlemania, and touring years==            ! THEME
===1963===
===1964===
===1965===

==Controversy, and studio years==             ! THEME
===1966===
===1967===
===1968===
===1969–1970===

== Post-breakup ==

===1970s===
===1980s===
===1990s===
===2000s===

I'm quite taken with this idea as it seems to meet everyone's needs. Thoughts/objections? PL290 (talk) 08:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Members in the infobox

I was wondering why All four are listed as "members" even though the band broke up. Other bands that broke up like Cream (band) and Led Zeppelin have members listed under former members. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is right here; have fun!
Welcome to Wikipedia, also! Radiopathy •talk• 04:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The way it is here actually makes more sense to me than listing them all us former members. I was wondering why no consistency though. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Distribution Tweak

The article refers to music distribution services such as "Napster" but clearly seems to be in the context of iTunes. Changing the text "Napster" (and the accompanying hyperlink) to "iTunes" seems prudent. Titomuerte (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years active

Shouldn't the 'years active' be '1957-1970'? The band technically formed then, not in 1960. A name change does not create a new band. See Radiohead. Zazaban (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you mean 1957, but apart from that I tend to agree. PL290 (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Thank you. Zazaban (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since they released Real Love and Free as a Bird in the 90s, would they be considered active then as well? Deserted Cities (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, no: even though some new music was released, that was only ever a project by ex-members looking back on the time when they were active. Since no one's disagreeing about 1957 though, I suggest we go ahead and change that. PL290 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Should pre-1960 members be added to 'former members' now? By the way, a friend of mine brought up that The Beatles didn't technically cease until 1975. I don't agree that this should be changed, but I want to mentioned it anyway. They weren't 'active' after 1970, unless you make silly arguments about solo collaborations (which he will if he ever finds out that non-registered users are able to edit this site.) Zazaban (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years active the Quarrymen 1957 the beatles Years active 1960 93.41.60.3 (93.41.60.3) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include folk rock in the genre

The Folk Rock article mentions the beatles countless time. I think we should include it in the genre. Since I'm not a regular editor here I'll let you guys decide. --Fire 55 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Zazaban (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason, I decided to be bold and added Psychedelic rock. Deserted Cities (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have hoped for more discussion before doing this. Let's not forget that folk rock is a derivative of folk music and rock music, and whereas The Beatles may have borrowed stylistically from Bob Dylan in his 1965 electrification, and slightly later, The Byrds, in no way did they take anything much from folk music, considering their roots were unarguably in the 1950s American blues/R& B imports into Liverpool. Having said that, they were arguably magpies in that they were influenced by lots of things they heard- but that, in itself, is insufficient to apply folk rock as a general label. Consider this: as far as the UK is concerned, most musicologists would agree that Fairport Convention and Steeleye Span exemplify folk rock. I challenge anyone to find a source stylistically linking those two bands with The Beatles, or vice-versa. The influence is, if anything, minor. Similarly with Psychedelic rock; they may well have begun, or been a major contributor, to that sub-genre, but overall, if you really think those sub-genres need mentioning, it opens the floodgates to all sorts of other unsupported stuff. "Pop and Rock" is good enough, as far as I'm concerned, per Occam's Razor. Rodhullandemu 00:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue to at least keep Psychedelic, as they are fairly famous for that subgenre in particular. Zazaban (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←)Again, if we're talking about sub-genres, there are too many to include sensibly (Hard rock, Country & Western, Comedy, Raga, etc). But we're talking not about sub-genres, but genres, and taking a broad view, I think pop (for the early years) and rock (for the later years) cover all the possibilities. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said we include everything, I said including one because it is particularly significant. Zazaban (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The slippery-slope argument shouldn't apply here. It seems reasonable to include multiple genres in the infobox, say 3 or 4 at most. Just because they recorded a few songs in one style or another, doesn't mean we add it. Instead, if their famous for that style, we do add it. The Psychedelic rock article goes into great depths about the Beatles and even says "With their 1967 releases, The Beatles set the mark for this genre". Deserted Cities (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this article, but we might want to start discussions at the album articles about minor expansion of the genres there. Radiopathy •talk• 01:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous suggestion that this article should stay with the 'aim for generality' path but The Beatles' album articles could be reviewed and expanded slightly in a few cases. (but hopefully not over-killed as some might tend to do with an album like the White Album) Peter Fleet (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)To repeat a comment I've just made where this came up elsewhere: we should source them like any other statement. If a WP:RS says it's "rock", then we say it's rock, and give an inline citation to the source. Otherwise, we say nothing because it is simply WP:OR. PL290 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Being as inclusive as possible while preventing edit wars, I would suggest: "Rock, Pop rock, Hard rock, Psychedelic rock, Folk rock, Experimental rock. Jacob Richardson (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See section The Beatles#Musical evolution which was recently tagged to invite verifiable statements about genre. Establishing consensus using verifiable content in this section (which is anyway of interest in the article) should enable the infobox to list the main ones without warring. PL290 (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Preston & associated acts

Since Get Back was credited to The Beatles with Billy Preston, shouldn't he be an associated act? Also, it seems you could make an argument for Clapton, given his songwriting with Harrison and guitar playing for While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Deserted Cities (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd say no, fleeting collaborations like that are probably not relevant in the infobox. PL290 (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Preston or Clapton (or both)? Preston also was a session player on other songs (like organ on I want you she's so heavy). Deserted Cities (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Preston: he actually also played with The Beatles through most of the "Get Back" sessions, not just the one song. Radiopathy •talk• 03:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Associated_acts which tries to show what to include and what to avoid. It's a bit of a grey area but from my reading the key word is "act". I don't think session musicians who are themselves acts constitute associated acts. One example of what to avoid is "Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)". PL290 (talk) 09:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years active

Years active the Quarrymen 1957-1960 the beatles Years active 1960-1970 93.41.60.3 (93.41.60.3) 23:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Quarrymen have their own article. The Beatles came into existence in 1960. The Quarrymen is considered to be an associated act with three members who would become Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not one of the most; the most

{{editsemiprotected}} As common knowledge and categorical fact, it should more accurately read:

The Beatles were a rock and pop group formed in Liverpool, England in 1960 who became the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed band in the history of popular music.

This distinction corrects the inaccuracy of comparing The Beatles commercial success as equivilant to any other band.

Please change:

The Beatles were a rock and pop group formed in Liverpool, England in 1960 who became one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music.

to

The Beatles were a rock and pop group formed in Liverpool, England in 1960 who became the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed band in the history of popular music.


 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. That sort of change requires a reliable source to back up the claim. Celestra (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name a more commercially successful and critically acclaimed band? --Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While "critical acclaim" can be difficult to measure, it would seem to me that commercial success would be a matter of objective fact. ARE they the most commercially successful band? If so, the article should say so. Carlo (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still need a reliable source... (John User:Jwy talk) 20:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that the Beatles were the most commercially successful band of all time. But I would have a high bar set of expectations on allowing that statement. Even if you could find it in, say, Rolling Stone, I would want a more general recognition of it. It's just very, very difficult to say that anything is "the most" anything without stirring up all kinds of ruckus. As it is, the current version is a significant improvement over what it looked like just a couple of months ago, where the Beatles' greatness was not even mentioned in the first paragraph. But if you can find multiple, solid, sources, I'd be open to possibly changing that from "one of" to "the". Good luck! Unschool 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC is quoting Wikipedia.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to change the lead to reflect that the Beatles are the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed band in the history of popular music, but then I realized that this may not be true simply because they haven't been touring stadiums for decades like the Rolling Stones have. Those tours have garnered the Rolling Stones a heck of a lot of commercial success. I don't know if it makes up for the Beatles large advantage in record sales or not. It's also difficult to measure critical acclaim. They had their share of bad reviews. The New York Times famously panned Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Magical Mystery Tour also received a lot of negative press. It may be better to leave the lead at "one of," although I agree that it doesn't seem to go far enough. Perhaps we can say that they've sold more records than any other band in the history of popular music? That seems pretty well established. Clashwho (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How Many Records Did the Beatles Actually Sell

http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2009/04/29/min1592_195858.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/last-beatles-rock-band-song-kept-a-mystery-20090819-eq0r.html

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/the-beatles--rock-band-downloadable-content-details-direct-from-gamescom

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE57H5LN20090818 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


They have only sold over 170 million albums plus 42 million singles a total of 212 million in the USA alone


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_discography#Sales_figures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_the_United_States

I do not know about their woldwide sales

If you can find the sales for every country including the UK then i will believe you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesyull (talk • contribs) 18:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of believing "us", Wikipedia, but the sources we use. Generally, the sources quote record companies but there is always some skepticism over what record companies claim and what true sales are. The standard that Record companies use is the quantity shipped out to record shops, less the returns that turn up later - but this is open to "massaging". When promoting a record or band aggressively a record company may send out many more copies than have been ordered, to create an artificial seeming demand that the industry media can be advised about (leading to comment, increased interest, potential higher demand, etc.) and to disregard returns in their figures for a while (ha, you can even send out the returns to different shops under the same scheme and add them to the "sales" figures without printing/cutting any more product!) There is also the case where record companies will declare less product was sent out and sold than was the case, so the sales percentage to the band/writers/etc. remain in the companies hands. There have been recent legal actions by various Beatles and their estates in this respect - and it works mainly at the bottom and top end of the "famous artist" rankings - unknown bands do not have the clout to question the company, and top bands whose records are selling really well may have some sales "lost" without anyone noticing (straight away anyway). So, in answer, there will never be a truly definitive answer - but we will use the most reliable sources we can find to give some indication. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


artists getting treat differtly http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124760651612341407.html

Michael jacksobn sales are an impressive total, and second only to the Beatles, but far fewer than 750 million

This means he has out sold elvis

Mr. Jackson's record label, Sony Music, declined to share sales numbers. Ms. Bain didn't respond to requests for comment; she sued Mr. Jackson in May after their business relationship ended. In her lawsuit, she claimed Mr. Jackson sold "over 1 billion records world-wide

It also speaks about other artists sales

Inflated numbers aren't unique to Mr. Jackson. The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales record also reflects an estimate of the number of songs, not albums, according to trackers of such landmarks. Other performers, such as AC/DC, Julio Iglesias and ABBA, supposedly are members of the 200 million album club, but compiled sales figures put their respective totals closer to 100 million.

Units could be interpreted to mean a rough tally of the number of songs sold, not albums. But many journalists and fans interpreted the figure as albums sold, and a wildly inflated number was born.

it also says The Beatles' supposed one-billion-plus sales are Inflated so why are they still at 1 billion

Because that is what a reliable source says. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

For the Beatles, you write this, and nobody will contest.

Despite A Career Of Only 8 Years - 1962/1970 - The Beatles Became The Best-Selling Act In The History Of The Twentieth Century. On November 9, 2008 Ringo Starr will be accepting a Diamond Award for the Beatles having sold more records than any other recording act in the history of the Music Industry

[[1]]

--Roujan (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Ringo? Zazaban (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I own 12 Beatles albums, so I would say they definately sold at least 12.--Crestville (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this article included in.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Boy_bands --222.67.213.205 (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because "boy band" is a contemporary term that does not apply to The Beatles. The description of boy band in that article likewise does not fit The Beatles. freshacconci talktalk 10:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

The beatles are part of many genres: skiffle, rock and roll, rock, psychedelic rock, blues, hard rock, ska, pop. Shouldn't we include all of these in the genres in the box in the top right?Sebastian341 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that these are styles within rock and pop, not genres, and there is little to be gained by listing any possible style, otherwise the infobox would get to be almost as large as the article, and that's assuming they could all be reliably sourced. Rodhullandemu 21:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles&oldid=311131289

Leave a Reply