Talk:The Beatles/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 → Archive 35

Rock'n'Roll

shouldn't this be in their genre? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Rock and Pop covers it, to add Rock'n'Roll is redundant and confusing IMO. Rock'n'Roll implies 1950s music. — GabeMc (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, rock and roll and rock are pretty much the same... 24.89.194.251 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WTF pop wasn't there genre look through their wiki albums pages and you'll see only one album had pop songs and 3 had rock and roll and there not the same please listen to rock'n'roll and then a rock song you'll see a clear difference and the 60's were a year for Rock'N'roll too 82.0.95.94 (talk)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.95.94 (talk)

There have been many discussions here about the genres to be included which you probably haven't seen - try reading these discussions as it may help you to understand why the article includes what it does. Here's a link: [1]. Maybe there will be parts of those discussions which you think need more consideration, or maybe the links will explain the reasoning. Thanks. Begoon talk 06:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
82.0.95.94, your unsourced claim that "only one album had pop songs and 3 had rock and roll" does not hold up to scrutiny. In fact it would be easier to argue, IMO, that every Beatle album had both pop and rock songs. — GabeMc (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay then please provide a source that say's there pop 82.0.90.251 (talk)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.90.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_The_Beatles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles_for_Sale as you can see they released 3 albums with the genre "Rock N Roll" and below you'll see that this is there only album with the genre pop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hard_Day%27s_Night_(album) Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Eric, first, other Wikipedia articles are not considered RSs for this article, second are you really claiming that the Beatles were not at least in part a pop group? Which Beatles album do you think contains no pop songs? On, "please provide a source that say's there pop":

  • Davies, 1985, p.71
  • Gould, 2008, p.162
  • Brown & Gaines, 2002, p.122
  • Spitz, 2005, p.657
  • The Beatles, 2000, Paul: p.219, George: p.349 — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly my name is Ben "Eric" is my online ID, none of them contain many pop songs if you read through the albums Pop isn't considered a genre, but 3 of these so called "reliable" articles have the genre Rock'N'Roll and you can ask anyone nowadays and they would agree, and the so called sources you pasted ", Davies, 1985, p.71, Gould, 2008, p.162, Brown & Gaines, 2002, p.122, Spitz, 2005, p.657, The Beatles, 2000, Paul: p.219, George: p.349" that's just writing there's no links whatsoever 86.25.245.177 (talk)ericdeaththe2nd86.25.245.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Okay Ben, but I think you missed my point. Other Wikipedia articles are not Reliable Sources for this article, so it really does not matter what other wiki articles say about the Beatles genres, what matters is what the high quality reliable sources say do you understand the difference? But really, I'm curious, can you name one Beatles album that does not contain at least one pop song? And no, I didn't provide links to the sources, but I have hard copies of the sources listed above, and I gave enough detail so that anyone can check what the sources say if they are willing to make an effort. Also Ben, remember to sign your comments with four tildes, ala: ~~~~ And thanks for joining the discussion, a fresh perspective is always appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well i decided to be mature now, I think most of them don't have any pop songs the album "A Hard Day's Night" has loads of pop songs and the song "Love Me Do" would be considered pop but i think there last 3-4 albums don't have any pop songs nor do the first 2 but that's my perspective and yeah i know i accidently added 3 by mistake, Thanks 82.0.88.36 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.88.36 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ben, do you think "Here Comes the Sun" is a rock or a pop song? How about "Anna" from PPM? "Till there was You" form WTB? "If I fell" from A Hard days Night, "Eight Days a Week", "Yesterday", "Michelle", etcetera. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Here comes the sun i would say rock, anna is a mixture of pop and rock, till there was you is pop, if i fell i would say rock, a hard days night i would say both, eight days a week i would consider both, yesterday is pop, michelle is quite hard i would say it can't be rock but it doesn't sound popish, and nothing i'm going to say is going to have "rock n roll" added to the genre is it? 86.2.129.71 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd86.2.129.71 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily Ben, you just have to make a strong arguement for it. But I can tell you that this issue has been dedated here before, and the general consensus was that Rock covers it, and to add rock'n'roll isn't necessary. You can search the archives for the topic to look at previous discussions. But thanks for your input, and don't lose hope. You won't win every arguement here, but you may win some if your position is well-stated, and sourced. — GabeMc (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

I think the section "CD releases" should be integrated into the section "After the break-up (1970-present)", because 1) it breaks up the chronological order, and 2) both sections are currently incomplete or redundant if completed. As the section "CD releases" stands now, it excludes 1, Live at the BBC, and the Anthology, but if we complete it it will be redundant with the previous section. — GabeMc (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All this would be covered in the The Beatles discography article anyway, wouldn't? Which lists in addition to Anthology 1, 2 and 3', Yellow Submarine Songtrack as a compilation release in 1999 as well as several compilation releases in the 2000's. There is also the mid-nineties singles releases (incl. "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love"). I agree with your overall sentiment that the section "CD releases", as it is now, does not work well. As I don't edit music articles very heavily or often, I don't know what the definition of "CD release" would be exactly; or the difference between it necessarily and other discography lists (album, compilation etc.)--Racerx11 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, it seems we agree that, "the section "CD releases", as it is now, does not work well". So, Racerx11, do you support a re-work of the structure in this regard? Are you suggesting that rather than integrating the "CD releases" section within the current article, it should be integrated at The Beatles discography article? — GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I would be fine with integrating the section into this article. As for The Beatles discography, that would be fine too, but I dont understand the difference between a list of "CD releases" and the lists already in that article now. Would it simply be a list any Beatles music released in the CD format? with the dates each first became available in that format? That article already appears fairly exhaustive. In other words, I am leaning toward suggesting that we simply delete the entire 'Discograhy' section here and just have the link pointing to The Beatles discography, but not 100% sure if thats the best thing to do unless there is consensus for such an action.--Racerx11 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Specifically, I suggest some variation of this, versus this, any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about all that. The general idea you suggested in your original post is fine with me as far as removing 'CD releases' and incoporating the info into the section 'After the break-up (1970-present)', but I suggest you tie in with User:DocKino, the editor who reverted those changes, before putting all this back. I am stepping out if this dicussion more or less nuetral on the issue of restoring your edits. Thanks.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The CD releases section should remain as is, as it's about the tracks The Beatles released while they were together. There is a hatnote for The Beatles discography. My suggestion is to add a 1990s section to talk about the compilations from Live at the BBC onward. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, please explain how/why "CD releases" is "about the tracks The Beatles released while they were together." Why do we need a separate section for CD releases of music previously released on record? Also, Live at the BBC was not released (in any format except live on the radio) while the Beatles were together, so I am confused by your example. Further, to add info to "CDR" about the 1990s and 2000s would be redundant with the previous section, "After the break-up (1970-present)". Either way, "CDR" is incomplete or redundant. Can you give a good reason/s why "CDR" should not be integrated into "ATB"? — GabeMc (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
"The tracks" refer to the core catalog. Nothing else. The details are in the linked album articles. I'm also referring to commerically released recordings of which Live at the BBC did not qualify because it was released after they broke up in 1970. As for the potential redundancy, just list the new compilations of previously unreleased recordings as well as the single CD 1 compilation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in contributing here. I was traveling with limited Internet access.

First off, I'm unconvinced by the primary stated premises behind the restructuring. The "Discography" section as currently constituted no more "breaks up the chronological order" than do the "Musical style and development" or "Awards and achievements" sections. What we currently have is a large "History" section, followed by several topically focused sections that naturally reference periods of time also surveyed in the "History" section--that's an entirely standard format for a culture article, generally, and a pop music artist article, specifically. The question of sections being "incomplete" is similarly off-point; we choose what information goes in what section (chronological-history or topical-focus) to make each as effective and useful as possible; what's important is that the article as a whole is comprehensive and as complete as appropriate, which it is. As for "redundancy", I see all of one sentence that's arguably redundant--the final sentence of the "2000s" subsection; that hardly constitutes a redundancy problem.

Second, I think the "Discography" section as currently constituted has served and continues to serve the positive purpose of focusing on and clarifying the various permutations of The Beatles' canonical recordings. As the sources indicate, the story of what happened with those recordings in the digital era is more noteworthy than what has happened with the classic recordings of almost any other pop music artists, and I believe clearly continues to warrant its own narrative section. That story gets muddied, I believe, when it is divorced from the "Original UK LPs" list and threaded into the "After the break-up (1970–present)" subsection, which currently focuses on post-band activities and the latter-day release of recordings that are supplemental to the canon.

Third--and this is relatively minor--in terms of execution, I saw a very odd structure where sub-sub-sections titled "1970s", "1980s", "1990s", and "2000s" were followed by one titled "2009—present." Furthermore, "2000s" included events from 2009 and "2009—present" included events prior to 2009.

In sum, I believe the restructuring is unnecessary, solves no pressing problems, and actually weakens the narrative. While it doesn't strike me as impossible to come up with a more successful restructuring approach, for now I believe the structure with which the article achieved FA status clearly remains the superior one. DocKino (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc, on your first point, I feel the chronology is broken because "ATB" contains sub-sections for the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, yet these sections do not include the entire Beatles output, and are therefore incomplete. Then later in the article we have sub-sections for the 1980s, and 1990s in "CDR". So to me, we already have an "ATB" chronology that is incomplete and should be completed rather than making "CDR" redundant. Further, why is there a need for a "CD releases" section in the first place? We have no vinyl, 8-track, or cassette sections, and one could argue that with digital downloads, CDs are just another soon to be obsolete format. On your second point, why should this info not be at The Beatles Discography? We could reduce the size and load-time of the Beatles article if this info were smerged into the Discography article. On your third point, that is a simple editing issue that could easily be fixed, and was merely the result of my being bold and trying a new approach, that needed some tweaking. Also, the section, "After the break-up", mentions Live at the BBC, the Anthology, 1, Let it Be- naked, Love, and the 2009 remasters. So why does the section mention these CD releases, yet not the others? I do understand what you mean about the canon versus compilations, but again, couldn't/shouldn't this issue be addressed at the Discography article rather than here? — GabeMc (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I just added onto the CD releases subsection to show my version of how it should look. How is it? Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's well written, really, but I wasn't saying that the section couldn't technically be completed, it's just more redundant now that it's complete, and the Beatles is 1000 bytes larger and a slightly slower article now. The core of my initial arguement was that the section is by nature either incomplete or redundant, and I think your edits have proven that assertion to some extent. — GabeMc (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please indicate here whether you support or oppose GabeMc's proposal to integrate "CD releases" with either "After the break-up (1970-present) or The Beatles discography, or a combination of both. — GabeMc (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Qualified Support While it certainly seems like a good idea to me, I have not, to the best of my recollection, edited this article before, and my opinion probably should not carry the same weight as those of regular contributors. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I support altering the article as discussed. Either method would be acceptable to me. And Joefromrandb, your opinion is as valuable as any other editor's. The number of edits you may or may not have to any particular article is irrelevant. Don't let anyone tell you anything else. Sure, the editors who regularly edit an article tend to be more knowledgeable about that article, but the good ones amongst them recognise that outside views are a breath of fresh air, often allowing them to "see the wood from the trees" and spot issues they otherwise might not because they are so closely invested in the article.Begoon talk 01:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support* 153,126 bytes. As this page takes so long to load, any kind of brevity would be helpful.--andreasegde (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Andreasegde, is that a support, or an oppose? — GabeMc (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a support for any kind of trimming. Certain sections are way too long.--andreasegde (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please see my comments above. DocKino (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The CD releases section is either incomplete or redundant, in the project as well as the article, and it should be merged as much as possible into the Discography article, reducing the size and load-time of The Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with DocKino. I think an overview of how the band's core catalogue has been handled since the CD era is useful and works better in a separate section. Restructuring seems to me like yet more unnecessary work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
What about merging the CD info with The Beatles Discography? And as far as, "more unnecessary work", I will do the work, so that should not be an issue for you IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I concur that "unnecessary work" is an invalid argument against. Both in general and in the particular case. Bryan Henderson (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just a few comments on some of the changes that might be required if we decided to move the "Discography" section's content elsewhere:
  1. Whatever restructuring is done, I still think the "Discography" section should at least mention MMT, Past Masters, Capitol Albums Vol 1 & 2, Anthology, Live at the BBC, the remasters, and the digital releases. But it should do it much more concisely (maybe in list format?), with the most complete descriptions reserved for the page The Beatles discography.
  2. The Beatles discography is currently set up primarily for table content - it'd need some restructuring if we wanted to incorporate much of the prose text from this article's "Discography" section.
  3. The "Discography > CD Releases > 1980s" section's paragraph on how the band's albums were released on CD in 1987 could easily be transferred to the "After the break-up > 1980s" section of the timeline without much editing.
  4. The same goes for the paragraph on the Capitol Albums vol 1 and 2.
  5. As for the paragraphs on the 9/9/09 remasterings and the iTunes downloads: whether or not it's decided to leave the structure as it is, incorporate that information into the main History timeline, or transfer it across to The Beatles discography, these paragraphs could do with some trimming! Mainly, this article is supposed to give a general overview of the band, and I don't think such detailed quotes from Mojo about the remasters' sound quality really belong here. The Beatles discography, The Beatles in Mono and The Beatles Stereo Box Set would be the best places for detailed summaries of the remasters' critical reception, as those articles could accommodate further review quotes from a wider variety of sources.
--Nick RTalk 03:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a support to me. I agree with all five points. — GabeMc (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Just concentrate on the core catalogue and for the 1990s onward, just mention the new compilations from LIve at the BBC onward in passing. The details would be in the main The Beatles discography article with the hatnote already in place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like you support the proposal Steelbeard1, as that's essentially what I want to do. — GabeMc (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
But keep it within the CD Releases subsection of the discography section of this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, to it I respond with a question: why do we need a CD section at all, there is no vinyl, 8-track, or cassette sections? Is it particularly notable that the Beatles material has been available on CD for 25 years, and do we really need the details of such here? Why not link to the the canon here, with some key additions (MMT, Past Masters, Capitol Albums Vol 1 & 2, Anthology, Live at the BBC, the remasters, and the digital releases), and move as much info as we can to the Discography, and integrate any key points into "ATB"? — GabeMc (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The 8-tracks and cassettes were identical to the vinyl albums. With CD releases, The Beatles' catalogue was standardised world wide. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point there, but it still does not answer why the details of their CD releases should be at The Beatles versus at their discography. — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merging with "After the break-up". -- I've been out of the loop for a while, but I just wanted to get my two cents in here. The discography section, as is, does seem a little overly complicated. I wouldn't have a problem with moving much of the "CD Releases" section into the history article. It would fit in the narrative pretty seamlessly, most likely. The discography really should be just a list of the original UK albums, and maybe the EPs as well. Some articles (Frank Zappa comes to mind) eliminate the discography section entirely and just link to an external article. I don't think we need to do that here, but restructuring would definitely help. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as I can't see there's much point in keeping a separate CD section. If it is necessary to document in full detail every single release of each album the Beatles made, then perhaps that ought to be done on the individual page of the album in question. Whether to have a CD section at all - don't see it's necessary. --Matt Westwood 06:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I would say put it in the Discography article. Not to do so throws away a chance to keep the Beatles own article as short as posssible. A small amount of redundancy in the main article (a paragraph rather than just a redirect line) draws attention to the subject and stops editors from coming in and rewriting the whole thing, thinking it's been left out, because the redirect is small and hidden in the text. Britmax (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I've always taken the view that artist articles should be limited to their original releases and a few re-issues, where notable. It's a long article anyway, if such things aren't to be in prose then move them into the discography article. Parrot of Doom 14:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support moving CD releases into The Beatles discography. The article is overly long anyway, and that's the logical place for the material. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't understand why a Discography section should exist at all when an article with that title exists. But the "CD Releases" subsection is not discography. It's history of the band. If there's discographic information in there that isn't already in the discography article (I haven't looked closely enough), it should go in there, but the story of CD-era releases should go in the after-breakup history section. Bryan Henderson (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment ~ Unless my math is off, I count the poll at 10 to 3 in favor of integration of the "CD releases" section. This seems a clear consensus so I'll go ahead and make the edits. We can take another poll afterward if the community does not like the changes. Thanks for your time and participation. — GabeMc (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Added the Long Tall Sally (EP) which is the other Beatle EP with exclusive song content to the list. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Nice addition Steelbeard1. — GabeMc (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Critics' comments on 1987/2009 CDs

Starting this new section to avoid bogging down the straw poll. Further to my Point #5 above:

  1. As I said above, I don't think this article's Discography sections should include critics' comments on the 1987/2009 CDs. But while editing the section just now, I realised something that might be relevant if that text is incorporated into The Beatles discography. At the moment the 9.9.09 paragraph basically goes: "Facts about the remasters -> Brief skips back to 1965 and 1987 -> Critics' comments on 1987 CDs -> Critics' comments on 2009 CDs." That's a bit awkward! So IMO the Danny Eccleston quote about the 1987 CDs' sound quality (and his PW/Rain example) would be better placed in the paragraph on the the 1987 CDs.
  2. But wherever this text ends up, "ever since 1987 there have been complaints about the sound" is a strong claim; do you think we'd need more sources (like reviews written in the late '80s) to support it?

--Nick RTalk 04:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and it's part of what I was trying to say above. — GabeMc (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

< In any case, the sound of these remasters, mono or stereo, is exceptional. I've always felt that the sound quality of the original 1987 remasters was slightly underrated. The CD issues were well received at the time and were considered state of the art, but as the years wore on and the label never did anything to improve them, resentment set in and people began to focus on their flaws. Fair enough. But whatever you think of the 1987 remasters, these new versions are a marked improvement. In terms of clarity and detail, they are consistently impressive. But they're also successful for showing restraint> http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13425-stereo-box-in-mono/ --Roujan (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Need a fix

Number 236 ref need to fix from Southall 2006 to Southall & Perry 2006. 46.35.206.137 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Enigmamsg 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hot 100

The article makes at least two references to the Beatles 'topping Billboard magazine's list of all-time best-selling Hot 100 artists'. The Hot 100 mixes and sales and airplay so this sentence is misleading. Something like 'topping Billboard magazine's list of all-time most successful Hot 100 artists', or even 'topping Billboard magazine's list of the Hot 100's top 100 artists', the latter phrasing as lifted directly from their website, would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.248.197 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point 92.14.248.197, thanks for your input! I think your former suggestion is better than the latter, as it avoids the redundancy of "100". I've made the needed changes. Thanks again for your contribution! — GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Free as a Bird/Real Love, Active Dates

If Free as a Bird and Real Love were released as singles by the Beatles, wouldn't that mean that the group was active from 1995-1996 as well? Just because one member of the group passed away before more music was produced doesn't mean the group can no longer be active. The Doors is a good example of this. NintendoNerd777 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That was discussed before. The consensus was a firm NO. It was simply the three surviving Beatles and Yoko Ono collaborating on The Beatles Anthology projects. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Steelbeard1. — GabeMc (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a "firm" no. There were several (including myself) who concurred with the logic that inactive bands don't release newly recorded material. Not that I want to dredge this thing up or anything like that; just for the benefit of the OP... Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Good point Evan, you are correct, some did agree, and remember, consensus can change, it is not written in stone. — GabeMc (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
...but it is writ rather large at this time! Radiopathy •talk• 01:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't Pass Me By is not owned by Startling Music Ltd. but by Universal Music Publishing MGB Ltd., proof on the remastered booklets for White Album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul McMarkney (talk • contribs) 09:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012

The Beatles were a English Rock and Roll group.

95.144.105.74 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussion above (and the many other archived discussions) about genres. This has been discussed to death. The current genre description has been achieved by consensus. Cresix (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Past Members

Fine but I think it's still misleading, and on another note after reading through the archives It has come to my attention that theres a current members section and a past section members, the beatles ended years ago so why have it up? 86.25.244.103 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd86.25.244.103 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, IMO there are no current members, however, in order to change it one would need to build a consensus. — GabeMc (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What is a consenus? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The public infobox indicates "members" and "past members" with no mention of "current members." To avoid confusing the Fab Four for the never existed Fab Six, the members are John, Paul, George and Ringo and the past members are Stu and Pete. That is the consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


Ah i see, so is that why there isn't on of these below

Member's John Lennon - Vocals, Rhythm Guitar Paul McCartney - Vocals, Bass Guitar snd Guitar (1960-1961) George Harrison - Vocals, Lead Guitar Ringo Starr - Vocals, Drums/Percussion

Former Members Stuart Sutcliffe - Vocals, Bass Guitar Pete Best - Drums/Percussion Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

But Wikipedia guidelines (Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts) would demand that all members are 'Past Members'.

I think the idea is that the Beatles are an exception to that rule, or something. 108.46.110.232 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

White Album as start of the band's breakup

The article currently contains this text:

Describing the White Album, Lennon said, "Every track is an individual track; there isn't any Beatle music on it. [It's] John and the band, Paul and the band, George and the band, like that."[1] He recalled: "I enjoyed it. We broke up then."[2]

The first Lennon quote is nice and descriptive, but I think it needs something more explicitly stating that it marked the beginning of the breakup. Also, rather than two Lennon quotes in a row, it'd be better to switch to a comment from either a band member or a music critic. Here are two potential ones from Ian MacDonald:

"There is a secret unease in this music, betraying the turmoil beneath the group's business-as-usual façade." (Revolution in the Head, p.328)
"Essentially, the band had begun to disintegrate in the wake of their comedown from their major drugs period. It wasn't a group effort any more, but an association of former colleagues co-operating." (Essay "White Riot" in The Beatles: Ten Years that Shook the World, p. 340. Edited by Paul Trynka, published 2006 by Dorling Kindersley, originally published in Mojo.)

The article The Beatles (album) contains this text:

McCartney's public departure in 1970 would mark the formal end of the band's ensemble. He described the sessions for The Beatles as a turning point for the group. Up to this point, he observed, "The world was a problem, but we weren't. You know, that was the best thing about The Beatles, until we started to break up, like during the White Album and stuff. Even the studio got a bit tense then."

Unfortunately that quote's footnote doesn't give a reference any more specific than "The Beatles Anthology". (Doesn't even specify if it's the book or documentary!) Part of the same quote was included in the main band article until GabeMc's edit a few days ago. But it seems to be completely inaccurate: page 237 of The Beatles Anthology is about the end of 1966, and actually reads:

"PAUL: I don't think we were very wrorried about our musical ability. The world was a problem, but we weren't. That was the best thing about The Beatles. I don't think any of us worried musically. I think we were itching to get going."

So that'll need to be corrected - unless the version on The Beatles (album) is quoting the documentary rather than the book, and it was phrased differently there? --Nick RTalk 15:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  • OK, I've changed the quotes included in that section, removing all talk of it being a starting point for the breakup. Would the comments from Lennon, McCartney and Martin on the album's quality be better-placed alongside the comments from critics? (The Anthology book also contains Ringo's comment that he would have preferred to separate single album releases ("White/Whiter"!), which I considered mentioning, but it would've been too long: that can be left to the White Album's own page.) --Nick RTalk 16:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the heading. The start of the band's breakup was the death of Brian Epstein in 1967 who took care of the band's business affairs forcing the band to handle business matters which they were not good at. Lenoon's own quote from the article said it all: His death left the group disorientated and fearful about the future. Lennon recalled: "We collapsed. I knew that we were in trouble then. I didn't really have any misconceptions about our ability to do anything other than play music and I was scared. I thought, we've had it now Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Steelbeard1. — GabeMc (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Steelbeard1's correct in saying that the root causes of the breakup started prior to the White Album. But the Lennon quote "We broke up then" seemed to imply that to him, the White Album recordings represented the start of it happening. (That was what I meant with the section heading: "The White Album is presented in the article as if it was the start of the breakup".) What I was suggesting was the replacement of that quote with a different one from someone else saying the same thing more explicitly.
Anyway, in the end I removed the quote, mainly to avoid having two Lennon quotes in a row. I replaced it with quotes from McCartney and Martin that emphasise completely different things about the album's recording. --Nick RTalk 23:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members

According to the Wiki template:

"current_members:

This field is only relevant for active groups. Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. Separate multiple entries with <br />.

past_members:

This field is only relevant for groups. Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field. If membership of the group has varied over time, it should not be noted here, but may be discussed in the article body. Separate multiple entries with <br />."

Since current members, "is only relevant for active groups", shouldn't all 6 listed ex-Beatles be in past member section. Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is another issue that has been discussed extensively, along with genre debate and the debate that made it into the list of Lamest Edit Wars: should it be The Beatles or the Beatles; see the archives. Exceptions to the template you mention can be made by consensus, which is what happened here. Consensus can change, but I plead with everyone: let's not try to re-invent the wheel. Please review the previous discussions before trying to rehash all the previous arguments. If I recall, the general theme of the consensus was that The Beatles as Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr were a pervasive part of musical history. For some of you younger folks, believe it or not, there were many years as The Beatles rose to megastardom when almost no one had ever heard of Sutcliffe and Best. Again, please review the archives. FWiW, my vote is leave it like it is. Cresix (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Well said Cresix, I don't disagree. — GabeMc (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Due to the recent addition of Wings and the Quarrymen, I thought we might need to discuss this once again. According to the Wiki template 

"The following uses of this field should be avoided:
Association of groups with members' solo careers
Groups with only one member in common"

Both would seem to apply to POB and Wings, though perhaps not the Quarrymen. Any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ringo Starr and George Harrison are both listed as being former members of the Plastic Ono Band. The inclusion of the Plastic Ono Band is therefore worthy. Wings had one member of the Beatles in it. Wings should not be added under that logic.

108.46.110.232 (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good points, especially on Wings. And while it's true that Ringo and George played on one POB album each, were they really members? Was King Curtis a member of POB (It's so Hard)? Phil Spector (Love)? Billy Preston (God)? Also, who are the Flux Fiddlers from the "Imagine" album, then, are they also an associated act? — GabeMc (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Pete Best

The passage, "The band had already been contemplating Best's dismissal, so he was replaced by Ringo Starr" This is 100% incorrect. There is no attribute to this passage. The band had not been contemplating removing Pete Best at all. From the first recording session at Abbey Rd, which Best was at on 6 June 1962, to Best's dismissal it was over 2.5 months. 94.194.102.190 (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It is sourced to Spitz. Do you have a source to back up your claim? Cresix (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete

Non-notable beat combo that everyone's long forgotten. SmokeyTheCat 05:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh?? What's your point? Ah, April Fools. Joke's on me. Hardy-har-har-har. Cresix (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it true...

...that they visited Otis Redding's funeral? According to a Jet publication, The Beatles "were slated to leave London to attend the funeral". But did they visited it or not? I would say no, but let's see what others say. Regards.--GoPTCN 13:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this is a moot point. Such trivial details don't belong in the article. Cresix (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the article is massive as it is, and not in need of trivial details such as this. — GabeMc (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI, it is already included at Otis Redding#Death. GoingBatty (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you please answer my question?--GoPTCN 08:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - don't know whether they actually attended the funeral or not. GoingBatty (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Include or not?

  • The Beatles were such Stax fans that they even sent a limousine near an English airport to pick up the Stax crew (its first European tour)?
  • The Beatles once visited a gig with performers including Steve Cropper and Carla Thomas. When they saw the performance, all four bowed.

This could be added into the Influence section.--GoPTCN 10:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, maybe this is important on the Stax article, but IMO not significant enough to mention on the Beatles article. GoingBatty (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The Beatles were extremely popular in the Soviet Union, but yet the Soviet Union is not even mentioned... Without the Beatles there would be no Russian rock (Kino, Aquarium, DDT, etc.)--GoPTCN 10:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The Influence section is overall too small. I am pretty sure there is more to say then just two small sections...--GoPTCN 10:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

http://www.quoteland.com/topic/Beatles-The-Quotes/369/

Artemy Troitsky : <The Beatles, Paul, John, George and Ringo have done more for the fall of Communism than any other western institution>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1028603.stm

Milos Forman : <It sounds ridiculous but it's not. I'm convinced the Beatles are partly responsible for the fall of Communism>

Canadian-based academic Dr Yury Pelyoshonok, who grew up in the USSR in the 1960s, backs up his claim.

<The Beatles had this tremendous impact on Soviet kids. The Soviet authorities thought of The Beatles as a secret Cold War weapon>

<The kids lost their interest in all Soviet unshakeable dogmas and ideals, and stopped thinking of an English-speaking person as an enemy>

<That's when the Communists lost two generations of young people. That was an incredible impact> --Roujan (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the "Influence section is overall too small". It might need some adjustments, but not lengthening. Unless someone wants to create a separate "Influences" article and link it here, but if you do please first compose it in a sandbox in your user space and let everyone take a look and comment. Cresix (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the Influences section of the Beatles' article deals with musicians who influenced the Beatles, not the Beatles' influence on other people, so I think you mean the Legacy section, though in that case, I still agree in principle with Cresix, unless a well-sourced and succinct graph could be prepared and discussed before addition, I reccomend a new article that can deal with this issue in more depth, versus elongating an already especially large article. — GabeMc (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe include in The Beatles' influence on popular culture? GoingBatty (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summary

I'm not sure if this is a cause for concern, but Rockerdude101 changed the genre in the info box and marked the edit as minor putting in the edit summary, "puncuation error".[2] It has since been reverted, but it looks like they were being intentionally deceptive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely deceptive. I gave him a warning. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, deserved a warning. I reverted Rockerdude's edit and that is precisely how I interpreted his edit summary. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Check this out. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Certainly appears to be a sock. Here is User:Manda96's only edit to date, which ultimately resulted in this rather embarrassing looking exchange. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

London photo

removed image
Per request by User:GabeMc, who removed a photo with rationale, unexplained addition of image which resulted in sandwiched text, please take to talk. If the question is why the image was added, it's because it's one of the few semi-candid pre-invasion photos of the group, and the only such photo in the article. But if the question is how to un-sandwich text, the answer is to move the image or text.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

First, its a fair use issue, as I believe the image you added is likely copyrighted. Since I find it hard to believe this image is Public Domain, having appeared on the cover of an album. Also, there are currently three images of the band from late-63'-mid-64'. Further, the BBC image crowds the article, so I would rather swap images then add more photos to this section. I'm open to suggestions as always. As far as unsandwiching the text, I don't see how it could be done while retaining the images relevance to the surrounding text. — GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with GabeMc. In fact, other editors may be interested in an investigation of Wikiwatcher1 (talk · contribs) at WP:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1. Cresix (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmie Nicol

As an Australian I will never forget (well, I did until I looked up his name) that it was Jimmie Nicol who replaced Ringo for a short while when the boys toured Australia. Has his right to be mentioned in the Infobox been discussed? (Not pushing any POV here at all. Just asking.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew this was going to happen... It's a good question and it's best we address it now. I say no, he doesn't need to be mentioned because he wasn't a member in the same way that Pete and Stu were -- i.e., being a member of the official line-up of the group that would play with them on a regular basis outside of a contingency situation. He was a studio guy who came in on the Australian tour because Ringo was ill and in the hospital. In my opinion, it makes no more sense to put Jimmie Nicol in the infobox than it would to put Eric Clapton in there (I mean, he did play with them, right?). Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 10:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Jimmie Nicol was simply a substitute drummer who I would treat on the same level as Andy White and not consider a member. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I forgot about Andy White. Ditto there as well. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
No offense intended toward Nicol or his supporters, but I think everyone involved, including Nicol, knew he was not a bona fide member of the band, just a temporary substitute. Cresix (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, Nicol was never a Beatle, he briefly filled in for a sick Beatle. — GabeMc (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

When Lennon left The Beatles

With the developing consensus regarding the infobox involving (among other things) adding dates as to when each member was a Beatle, I see a problem with Lennon. Yes, Lennon quietly left the group in 1969, but that was kept under wraps for legal reasons. To the general public, Lennon did not leave prior to 1970 so I see an edit war brewing regarding when Lennon left the group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope there is no edit war about something so insignificant (IMO). When does someone leave a group? When they announce it to the others or when the group is legally changed/dissolved? The legal partnership existed until 1975. If I recall correctly, Ringo told the others he was quitting a couple of times. Cresix (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
That may spoil the infobox reformatting if such an edit war develops. Yes, Ringo did quit the group for about a week during the 1968 White Album sessions. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarification ~ The dates used above are "active" dates, otherwise we would need to extend the dates for the "Fab Four" to 1975, when the partnership was legally dissolved. As this would cause confusion to some readers, I think we can all agree to use the active dates (as the infobox does for the band). So while Ringo did quit for a spell in 1968, and Harrison for 5 days in 1969, they were still active during that year with the band, Lennon on the other hand, was not active with the Beatles during calender year 1970. Of course I am open to discuss ommision of the dates altogether, though I put them there to satisfy several editors who wanted them there, so that's for another straw poll perhaps. — GabeMc (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Let's not needlessly complicate things. Cresix (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree on not complicating things. Ringo and George, please these would probably be better documented as "Spats" for those small durations. John, I would be comfortable with the infobox stating the "public knowledge, official dates" of him leaving and in prose mention the private knowledge and why some would say different. IMO. Mlpearc (powwow) 02:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the dates. It could confuse the reader into thinking that the Beatles actually were a three man band during 1970 which they were not. Since technically none of the Beatles were active during 1970, since they didn't make an album during that year. They just recycled their tapes from 1969 to make Let It Be. PositivelyJordan (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Paul, George and Ringo all recorded as Beatles during 1970, all three on "I Me Mine" and Ringo was at the last session, for "the Long and Winding Road". — GabeMc (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
What Gabe said. George also overdubbed the guitar solo that was later used on the album version of Let It Be in March January, but that's a minor point. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point Evan, but do you think the dates are an issue, should we consider leaving them out of the infobox altogether? — GabeMc (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking about it, and I think, stylistically, it's best to leave the dates out entirely. Circa four months of no Lennon isn't much of an issue that needs to be addressed in the infobox, as it's adequately summarized in the lede. As long as all six Beatles are in the members field, with Pete and Stu separated in some way from the other four, it's an improvement that I will support. That said, if there is a consensus for dates in the infobox, Lennon's would indisputably be 1960-1969. : ) Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe dates only for Best and Sutcliffe? Metalello (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
If you say that Lennon wasn't a part of the Beatles in 1970, than I can see the confusion that some people might think he wasn't a part of Let It Be at all. When he was. I think the dates should go with the albums, not any particular song. It doesn't matter if he didn't record I Me Mine. He recorded on the majority of Let It Be which was released in 1970 as the Beatles, which he was a part of. PositivelyJordan (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hamburg description

GameMc uses this quote as background information on Hamburg:

Lewisohn writes, "They pulled into Hamburg at dusk on 17 August, the time when the red-light area comes to life ... flashing neon lights screamed out the various entertainment on offer, while scantily clad women sat unabashed in shop windows waiting for business opportunities".[3]

DocKino changed the quote to this:

"Hamburg in those days did not have rock 'n' roll music clubs. It had strip clubs", according to Beatles biographer Philip Norman. "It was a huge nonstop show, hour after hour, with a lot of people lurching in and the other lot lurching out. And the bands would play all the time to catch the passing traffic. In an American red-light district, they would call it nonstop striptease."[4]

The Lewisohn quote is evocative of the atmosphere of the place and time, but "adding atmosphere" is no excuse to add such lengthy quotes to this overview article: it's a long quote that doesn't really convey many facts about what the band did there. The Philip Norman quote is more informative on background information rather than atmosphere, but its essential facts could be conveyed more concisely by paraphrasing instead of direct quoting. (Another issue with the Norman quote: the Gladwell source isn't listed in the references section, so it's unclear where it comes from. Did Norman say it in his Beatles bio Shout!, and Gladwell's quoting it from there (in which case just cite Shout! directly); or did Gladwell interview Norman to get the comment?)

Leave such direct quotations to The Beatles in Hamburg article, which dedicates a whole section to background information like this.

For this overview article, I really think it would be more concise and encyclopedic to have no quotation at all, and just include a phrase something like, "The band played in strip clubs in Hamburg's red light district". Conveys the important information, is more concise, and uses less florid language. --Nick RTalk 01:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment ~ 1) A one-sentence quote from Lewisohn is hardly lengthy, to describe to the reader the atmosphere in Hamburg when they arrived. 2) They didn't really play in strip-clubs with strippers though, except for an isolated incident, as both the Indra and the Kaiserkeller were previously (and later) strip-clubs, but according to Lewisohn, Harry, Gould, and Miles, Koshmider had converted them into music venues before the band arrived, which is why the Norman quote is misleading and inaccurate, Koshmider's clubs were indeed music venues when the Beatles played there. — GabeMc (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"The" or "the" in quoted band names

At the risk of opening that The/the can of worms again...

Look at this edit, which was later reverted back.

According to band historian Mark Lewishon, they used the name through May, when they became "The Silver Beetles", before undertaking a brief tour of Scotland as the backing group for pop singer and fellow Liverpudlian Johnny Gentle. By early July they changed their name to "The Silver Beatles", and by the middle of August to "The Beatles".[5]
According to band historian Mark Lewishon, they used the name through May, when they became "the Silver Beetles", before undertaking a brief tour of Scotland as the backing group for pop singer and fellow Liverpudlian Johnny Gentle. By early July they changed their name to "the Silver Beatles", and by the middle of August to "the Beatles".[5]

Did Lewisohn use the lower-case "the" because that was what the band used (I would imagine that if the name ever appeared on adverts and posters of the time, the whole thing would have been capitalised!)... or did he just write it lower-case for consistency with the style guide he followed throughout the book?

If it's just an artefact of his publisher's style guide, is it acceptable to change it to match Wikipedia's MOS? I.e. use a capital "T" to match the mid-sentence use of "The Beatles". I think we should do that; Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations states:

Although the requirement of minimal change is strict, a few purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment. This practice of conforming typographical styling to a publication's own "house style" is universal.

Having said that, it wasn't WP:MOS that established that mid-sentence we should write "The Beatles"; it was consensus established on this talk page.

I spy another lame edit war coming on... ;)

--Nick RTalk 01:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion about how quotations should be handled, but I remind editors that the T vs. t dispute has been fought ad nauseam several times, made it into Wikipedia's list of lamest edit wars, and was actually taken to arbitration. No reflection on Nick R for raising the question, but my hope -- my plea -- is that we dispense with this section hastily and move on. Cresix (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment ~ On page 352 of the Beatles Anthology, you can see it written in Paul's hand using "the" (1970). Here is a letter dated 1969 signed by Lennon, Harrison, and Starr that uses "the". I agree with Cresix and Nick, this is a lame waste of time, when 95%+ of the sources used in the article, and members of the band themselves used "the", its ridiculous to force the minority opinion. Books that use "the": Epstein's book, Derek Taylor's book, Emerick's book, Martin's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book, Sources: Lewisohn, Harry, Gould, Spitz, Miles, Davies, Brown, Norman, Everett etectera. These sources are closest to the band and the most reliable/high-quality, why would we ignore them to please a few entrenched editors. Also, the current consensus here is to keep mid-sentence usage of the term "minimal", not to defy the MoS, which states: "Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g.: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues." How more clear can you get than that? It's usage in the article is minimal, and therefore not in breech of current consensus. — GabeMc (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I raised the issue on this talk page because I hoped you'd be able to provide a thorough justification for it (longer than you could fit in an edit summary), which could be referred to next time people get into an edit war over it. You've done exactly that, thanks. --Nick RTalk 10:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think GabeMc puts it very well indeed. Any slight chance of going through that dark demonic valley of t-T again would be just as destructive as the other times it has been debated. Let it rest, in a very uneasy peace, but let it rest.--andreasegde (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A different matter but related. Why is that this article is named "The Beatles" but the Spice Girls article is just named "Spice Girls" (not "The Spice Girls")? I'm sure there are other naming contradictions elsewhere on Wiki articles. Is there some explanation or Wiki style guide to account for this, or what? Popcornduff (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Reliable sourcing suggests "the" is part of "the Beatles" official name, the same may not be true about the Spice Girls. At any rate, if this is a point of contention, the issue should be brought up at the Spice Girls article, not here. — GabeMc (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 May 2012

Quote: Kirchherr took the first semi-professional photos of the group,[20] and she encouraged Sutcliffe to comb his hair forward in the pilzenkopf or "mushroom head" style popular among university students in Germany and France at the time.[21]

It's not "pilzenkopf", it's "Pilzkopf", meaning "mushroom" in German: http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=&search=pilzkopf 85.176.24.97 (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Dangling participle - clarification needed

In the "Events leading up to final tour" section, we have this sentence: "Originally using the Vox AC30 amplifiers, Vox had developed more powerful 100 watt amplifiers especially for the Beatles as they moved into larger stadiums in 1964, but these were still inadequate." Looks like an instance of the dangling participle. I gather what is really meant is that the beatless used the Vox AC30 amps, but it reads as though Vox themselves were using them. if not, then the fact that Vox originally used those AC30's is not relevant here. Anyone care to clear this one up? --Matt Westwood 19:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed it! Thanks for bringing it up. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Past/Current Members

How can a dissolved band even have current members, let alone two people who are no longer living? Its most accurate to say that the Beatles had six members total in their lifespan, but since they are no longer an active band, there are no current members. — GabeMc (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no section labelled current members. Just as you see none of the countless threads wasted on this topic. Hot Stop 22:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
1) While the section does not say "current" it says "members" and "past members" implying "members" is current. 2) Past discussions matter little, consensus can change. — GabeMc (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, while the section is not called "Current Members" the field is, which clearly implies the field is to be used for Current Members, in this case, two of which are "currently" dead. — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Further, according to Norman 2008, pp. 622–24., Lennon announced he was leaving the band on 20 September 1969, and McCartney quit on 10 April 1970,(Lewisohn 1992, p. 349.) so not only do we have two dead people in the "Members" section of the infobox, we also have an ex-band member who quit, and never rejoined. — GabeMc (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

current_members

This field is only relevant for active groups. Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names.

past_members

This field is only relevant for groups. Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field. If membership of the group has varied over time, it should not be noted here, but may be discussed in the article body. — GabeMc (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction. The public infobox says "Members." NOT "Current Members." This has been hashed over again and again and again. There was a discussion on the Infobox musical artists talk page at [3] in which it was decided upon that The Beatles were the exception to the rule as they were when they were making music all those years ago. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification ~ 1) The field is called "current members", and the other infobox section is called "Past Members", which implies "Members" is not past, but current. Steelbeard1, are you claiming that there are only two past members of the Beatles? Was Lennon a member of the Beatles when he died? 2) While I appreciate your links to prior discussions, they tend to be several years old, like the one above, which is five years old, and therefore virtually irrelevant today, consensus can, and does change, it is never written in stone. — GabeMc (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point, GabeMc, about the format of the infobox being used and the nature of The Beatles' lineup over the years. Yes, they are defunct and three are deceased. But the point is, THEY WERE NOT THE FAB SIX so do not confuse those who want to learn more about The Beatles from the infobox. They are John, Paul, George and Ringo and before they were famous there was Stu and Pete who were no longer with the group when they became famous. We need a new infobox format for defunct groups, but lacking one, the current formatting of the infobox is the best we can do. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll

The purpose of this poll is to gage current consensus as to the members sections of the Beatles infobox. I suggest we list all six ex-Beatles as "Past Members", and leave the "Current Members" field empty, as the band was dissolved in 1975, and has since not reformed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support ~ The "members" section as it now stands includes two dead people, and two people who are no longer in a band called the Beatles. The "members" section should be blank, with all six previous members in the "Past Members" section. — GabeMc (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This one's a tough call. Obviously there are no "members" of The Beatles anymore, but putting all six together seems to put Sutcliffe and Best on an even par with the four well-known members. Normally this would be a no-brainer "support" for me, but The Beatles may be an anomaly. How about changing "members" (Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starr) to "lineup", while leaving Sutcliffe and Best as "past members"? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Joe, the first graph of the lede handles this issue fine, so why not just follow current Wiki guidlines? — GabeMc (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a fansite and no exception should be made." — GabeMc (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
While I appreciate all good music, including The Beatles, I wouldn't call myself a "fan". And even if I were their biggest fan, I would never advocate editing the article from a fan's point of view. My opinion that an exception may be ideal in this case is again, based on my belief that the case of The Beatles is an anomaly. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons that were determined when the current infobox arrangement was decided in a previous consensus. I agree that The Beatles are an anomaly in this regard. Essentially, my reason for wanting to leave it like it is, is that The Beatles as Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr were (and continue to be, even with half of them dead) one of the most pervasive influences, not only on music, but on culture in general. Sutcliffe and Best simply don't fit into that framework the way the other four do. Rather than this proposal, I would actually prefer to leave out a listing of membership altogether in any form in the infobox (but leave the photo caption); but my preference is to leave it like it is. For more details, see the several discussions of this issue in the archives. Cresix (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Good points Cresix, but I would say as far as Sutcliffe and Best, the lede and the article body make their roles very clear IMO. More importantly, how is it that Lennon could be a member of a band he quit over a decade before he died? By all accounts there were six individuals in the Beatles between 1960-1970, and none after they broke up, initially in 1970, and legally in 1975, when the partnership was dissolved by a High Court. — GabeMc (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for using "member" as defined by the infobox's parameters, or by what the High Court states is legal. If we rigidly had to follow those parameters, we wouldn't even be having this discussion; it would be an inflexible decision that would require no discussion. That is why we must have a consensus to make an exception to those parameters. My point pertains to perception. The world generally perceives The Beatles as Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr. I don't have hard statistics to prove this, but I feel quite confident that if you ask the general public who the members of The Beatles are, the response would overwhelming be those four. That may not fit into Wikipedia's way of doing things, but it is a reality. I'm saying we need an exception to the way Wikipedia usually does things. Cresix (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I see your point on perception, and the need for discussion to determine consensus, and I agree 100%. I also agree with the assumption of the band's most famous line-up. My point here is, the lede and article do nothing but support this, so why do we need to bend Wiki guidelines at all? Is the infobox really gonna have people thinking Sutcliffe wrote "Yesterday", or Best "Octopus's Garden"? The "most famous" line-up is made perfectly clear in the first graph of the lede, isn't it? Then the second graph explains Best and Sutcliff's roles. As it stands now it implies the band is active, and I think those who want to bend guidelines have the burden of making a convincing arguement as to why. — GabeMc (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The infobox is powerful. I think many, if not most, people first look at the infobox before reading anything in the article. I don't want any misleading first impressions. And I think placing Sutcliffe and Best on an equal standing with the other four makes a glaringly inaccurate first impression. If I were new to Wikipedia and wanted to find out more about The Beatles, if I first glanced over at the infobox and saw six Beatles listed as if all six were a part of the most famous lineup, I probably would dismiss the article as inaccurate and not bother to read it. The Beatles many times were the exception to the rule, and they continue to be. I don't think it diminishes the article, or other band articles, or Wikipedia in general to make an exception here. Cresix (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As stated in previous discussions, the lineup of The Beatles from their first record release in 1962 to the formal breakup in 1970 had always been consistent: John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. They were popularly nicknamed The Fab Four. Before the group became famous, there were two earlier members when they were local stars in Liverpool and Hamburg--Stuart Sutcliffe who left the group in 1961 (and died in 1962) and Pete Best who was sacked in 1962 in favour of Ringo Starr before the Abbey Road recording sessions for their first Parlophone single. The infobox states the "members" as John, Paul, George and Ringo and the "past members" as Stu and Pete so the group could never be mistakenly called The Fab Six. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Steelbeard1, I'm not debating their most famous line-up, this debate is about whether an article about a dissolved band with two deceased ex-members should list that "most famous" line-up as its members, in the "current members" field. Look at it this way, if you were the member of a club or organization that closed, do you remain a member, or are you a past member after dissolution? Also, FTR, the first recording session at EMI, on 4 September 1962 included Best, not Starr. — GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
GabeMc is wrong regarding Pete Best at Abbey Road. The Best session was on 6 June 1962 and was a demo session only. "Love Me Do" from that session would eventually be issued on the double CD The Beatles Anthology 1 in 1995. After the session, Best was sacked by the band. George Martin was not happy with Best's drumming so he arranged a session drummer for the actual recording session. This was done on 11 September 1962 with Andy White on drums and Starr on tambourine. A few days earlier, the song was recorded with Ringo on drums on 4 September. Ringo's version was the debut Parlophone release on 45-R4949. George Martin substituted the White version for the Please Please Me album and that was the version released in the US in 1964. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Steelbeard1, you're right, I did get the date wrong above, a brain fart, its 6 June not 4 September, I should have double checked, but my point was that the first session included Best, that's all, which it did. Also, Best wasn't sacked until mid-August, nine weeks after the session. — GabeMc (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Which was, again, a DEMO session with tracks recorded not intended for release. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
According to Lewisohn, "From EMI paperwork recovered in 1991 it is clear that this session [6 June] ... was not only an audition but also a proper recording date, the Beatles first, under their 4 June contract to the company." According to Lewisohn, they performed "a large selection of material" and "four recordings were made".(1992, p=70) But you're right, they were not used commercially, so one might call them demos. — GabeMc (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ~ A check of pages of other bands in the same situation - defunct, a classic lineup, a few less famous minor members - shows that they are all handled in the way proposed: all members listed as "Past Members". I dig the Beatles as much as the next man but Wikipedia is not a fansite and no exception should be made. -- Metalello (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ~ I feel consistency and precedent and good guides here so that we should list all as past and consistenly continue with the precedent Metalello points out. -- Tearaway (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose there is no section called current members, people just infer that on their own. More importantly, there is no compelling argument for switching this, and doing so would just confuse readers (you know, those people we aim to serve). Hot Stop 04:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, there is no section called current members, but the fields are called "current members" and "past members", which obviously implies current to the former, and since there are only two sections, "members" and "past members", if you are not part of one group, you are clearly part of the other. Lennon was not a Beatle when he died, he was a former Beatle, therefore a past member, they are not a ghost and this is an encyclopedia, not a meta-physical fansite. As far as confusing readers, I am not spending hours writing/editing for an audience that can't even read the first five sentences of the article. — GabeMc (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, the average reader only sees "members" and "past members". The fields could be "dogshit eaters" and "fuckers", but they'd still see that. I don't know why you're wasting so much time (both yours and everyone else's) for such a minute detail. Hot Stop
Gabe has put in much volunteer work here, improving many articles, and I see nothing "time-wasting" about a good-faith proposal. While I don't completely agree with Gabe here, I have no doubt that his only aim is to improve the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Joe, @Hot Stop, please explain how one can be a member of something that does not exist, i.e. the band is defunct. You're not explaining why a defunct band should have four members listed, two of which are dead. — GabeMc (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The Beatles aren't special, they are just another 60's pop band and don't merit special treatment. Treat them like any other. --Matt Westwood 05:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Beatles were NOT just another 1960s pop group, they had more more impact on the decade both musically and culturally than any other band-and I'm speaking as a die-hard Rolling Stones fan. I think the infobox looks good as it stands. John, Paul, George and Ringo were the members that comprised the group when it achieved international fame and imprinted itself on the collective psyche of an entire generation. Best and Sutcliffe were not part of that era.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jeanne Boleyn. The infobox is quite clear and correct as it is. There is no compelling reason to change it. -- Alarics (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose pretty much per Steelbeard1. Question I noticed in that info box the Associated acts include: The Quarrymen, Plastic Ono Band; but do not list either Wings (band) or Traveling Wilburys - why is that? 2eschew surplusage (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Answer ~ "The following uses of this field should be avoided: Association of groups with members' solo careers, Groups with only one member in common", since both Wings and Wilbury's only have one member in common they are not associated acts, per Wiki guidelines. — GabeMc (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Other than Lennon, which of the other 3 played in the Plastic Ono band? 2eschew surplusage (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Starr played on the first POB album, Harrison played on the second (Imagine). — GabeMc (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
cool .. I didn't know that. (only skimmed the Ono Band article real fast).. thx Gabe. 2eschew surplusage (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The infobox sits very well as it is, with 4 members and 2 past members. That is exactly how everyone thinks of and remembers the band. I know that doing this appears to fly in the face of the guidelines for the template, but maybe that should be taken up at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. (Actually, shouldn't a link to this straw poll be placed there anyway?) Joefromrandb suggested using "lineup" above and I eagerly scanned the template page for that parameter, but it unfortunately doesn't exist. I wonder if the template guys have really thought about defunct and deceased bands and artists enough? In a sense, they are not entirely defunct while their recordings are still on sale - people buying a Beatles record today will not be wondering which of the 6 sometime-members were involved. Actually, there may be all kinds of people other than the 'fab four', and some of them may not actually be contributing, depending on the track. In a sense, 'The Beatles' and the fact that there were 4 of them, is more of a marketing image than a reality for most of the time that it existed. So, are we in a WP:IAR situation because The Beatles were unique, or are we in a situation where the template documentation needs altering to fit reality? In the modern world of synthetic popular music, I wonder what meaning 'members' has anyway. It refers to a marketing stand and a legal contract regarding royalties, not a simple public-facing fact about who made the music - session musicians, computer programmers, studio engineers, etc were all equally or more influential on the sounds we hear. The Beatles may have been one of the last bands to span that time when a popular band began on stage (just the 4 of them), and ended up in a studio (unable to perform many numbers live as so many people and effects were necessary). Most bands now begin and end in a studio, and tour with heavily pre-recorded backing. The 'current_members' field is entirely a marketing fiction for them, unless a hundred other people were included somewhere too. I think, if you look at this deeply enough, there is no real, once-and-for-all, meaning to these fields and their fieldnames, (especially when you think all the way from a string quartet to a band of rappers) and so they should be used to make each article 'look right'. Which this one does with 4 'members' and 2 'past members'. WP:IAR. --Nigelj (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The infobox is best left as it is. Clarity for readers trumps any need to enforce "consistency" - there is sufficient justification for this article to be an exception to the usual rule. Perhaps the "rule" should be changed elsewhere so that, where a defunct band has a demonstrably best-known "classic" line-up, that should be treated separately from other ex-members. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. The Beatles are unique: leave out the info box. Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" jmcw (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I really don't particularly mind which way it ends up. To summarise some of the arguments:
  1. Someone who reads the article and glances at a "Past members" infobox ordered Lennon-McCartney-Harrison-Sutcliffe-Best-Starr is going to come away with a misleading impression about which was the most recognisable lineup - but this would then be corrected when they go on to read the first paragraph of the article. This approach has the advantage of sticking to the documentation of Template:Infobox musical artist.
  2. Someone who reads the article and glances at a "Members" infobox ordered Lennon-McCartney-Harrison-Starr is going to come away with a misleading impression that the group is active and not dissolved, with all four still alive. But this would then be corrected when they go on to read the first sentence which says that the Beatles "were" a band. But this has the advantage of keeping the most recognisable lineup separate from those who left before they were really famous. We'd be making an exception for this one band, but it's an exception that might be permitted under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
Both approaches have their flaws, so it's a bit of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.
Maybe someone ought to propose at Template talk:Infobox musical artist that a new Most recognisable past lineup of past members field should be added to the infobox? That way we could justify keeping JPGR separate, but without getting the facts wrong! ;)
OK, that's a bit of a frivolous suggestion. However, I do think it might be good to mention this issue at Template talk:Infobox musical artist. Ghmyrtle suggested above, "Perhaps the "rule" should be changed elsewhere so that, where a defunct band has a demonstrably best-known "classic" line-up, that should be treated separately from other ex-members." The template talk page would be a good place to do that.
But overall, I'm pretty neutral about what I think is quite a minor issue with no flawless solution. I think it would have been more productive if all the effort that's gone into focusing on this dispute had instead gone towards improving the body text of this article and some of the more neglected Beatles-related pages. --Nick RTalk 12:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - although the parameter is called |current_members=, the reader only sees the heading "Members". The Beatles success was with John, Paul, George, and Ringo - and the infobox properly represents this to the reader. I would support a change to {{Infobox musical artist}} to have |current_members= be changed (or aliased) to |members=, so what editors see matches what readers see. GoingBatty (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but with a new idea: What about "Members: 1962-1970" and "Former Members: 1960-1962"??--andreasegde (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
A good ides, but I do not think this is possible with the current format of the infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support--But they didn't dissolve in 1975, according to the founder (John). It was before that. The change would serve to organize the information better. But this change should carry over to other bands, too. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Jim, while Lennon "quit" in 1969, and McCartney in 1970, their legal partnership was not formally dissolved until 1975.(Harry 2002, pp. 139, 150) — GabeMc (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppose i support the idea for 2 reasons.
The band has ended, so whats the point in keeping them up
Many other bands have had there members moved to past members and didn't keep their line up fresh
but i oppose because
I would rather keep the line up fresh
My idea of adding rockNroll was opposed

Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk)


  • Support - The Beatles no longer exists as a band, so it has no members. It therefore follows that the six names in the infobox are all past members. I'd present the obvious four names in the past members section, followed by the other two guys with (195x-196x) after each name. Parrot of Doom 18:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ~ The Beatles are no longer active so I believe it's appropriate to have all six names in the infobox as past members even though the band were known as the "Fab Four". Sutcliffe and Best were official members themselves. However, Sutcliffe and Best should be listed last, I think. As someone mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a fansite. TheOnlyOne12 (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral ~ I agree with the person who said was should do Members from (1960-1961) etc Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment ~ It seems most of the "oppose" votes are justified by "the Beatles were special/unique", while most of the "support" votes reject this assertion, and advise treating them as any other band. I submit that while few argue whether or not the Beatles are the best selling band, (though in fairness, sales estimates are derived from claims by Guinness via EMI, hardly a neutral source), not everyone considers them the "greatest" or "most influential", indeed many people feel they were overrated and over-hyped (though I'm not one). It seems Wiki editors want to push their ideal of the band on readers, versus presenting information in an unbiased way. Wiki is an encyclopedia based on, among other things, facts, not a meta-physical fansite built on emotions, perceptions, and sentimentality. I agree with exploring the option of a "Classic line-up" field, and I have started a thread here to discuss it. — GabeMc (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not opposed to the "classic lineup" idea if that parameter could be added to the template. I disagree that most of those who oppose the change are pushing their ideal of the band. First, there are matters beyond how much someone "idealizes" The Beatles; someone can recognize their astounding influence without idealizing them or pushing a particular point of view in the article. I know lots of people who don't care much for The Beatles' music but recognize their influence. Secondly, even if an editor personally worships John Lennon (I'm exaggerating to make a point), that doesn't negate the value of the ideas that editor might have about what is the best presentation in the infobox. As I have said above, we have discussions such as this so the community's thoughts about a possible exception to the infobox guidelines can be expressed. If the community wants this infobox to follow the usual procedures for infoboxes, that's the way it will be. But if the community wants to make an exception, it's done through discussion rather than rigidly following guideline. I think most of us will respect the community's decision either way, but this type of discussion is often the way things are done here. Cresix (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
1) My point is that of the nine current "opposes", at least 7 include justifing descriptors such as unique, an exception, an anomaly, etcetera. 2) While I don't deny the relative influence of the six members, no one has yet answered how Lennon is a "member" of a band he quit a decade before he died? — GabeMc (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a semantic issue. Are we talking about who are the members (none of them obviously), or who were the members (all six of them obviously), or who were the members that the vast majority of the world recognizes as The Beatles. We could argue the semantics of this issue from now until doomsday and never resolve it. We're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole because the infobox's parameters doesn't currently have the round peg or the square hole that we need, so with that limitation we are trying to decide what is the better way do it since the perfect way does not exist. Naming all of them members isn't perfect because there are no current members. Naming four of them members and two of them past members isn't perfect because they are all past members. Naming all of them past members without differentiation between the big four and the minor two isn't perfect because that is very misleading. Our only choice is to hammer out an imperfect decision unless/until the parameters are changed. Cresix (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that its semantics at this point. Its basic logic IMO. There is a field for "current members", and there is a field for "past members", but there is no field for "Classic line-up", maybe we can get that changed, but as it stands now, the appropriate thing to do is to put all six in past members, until another more accurate option is available. I mean, there is no field for best bass player, should we parenthetically make the distinction that Paul was better than Stuart? As far as the whole "misleading the reader" arguement, if its not a strawman, its weak IMO, anyone who reads the second sentence of the article will know who composed the classic line-up, and are we really making all this effort for people who do not even read the first few sentences of the article? Wiki does not edit for the lowest common denominator, if we did, most of the language would need to be significantly dumbed down in a great number of FAs. — GabeMc (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with GabeMc. It is clearly a semantics issue. We do not want to put the minor members Stu and Pete on an equal footing with John, Paul, George and Ringo. So, when dealing with the restraints of the current infobox formatting when the public infobox says "Members" and "Past Members", listing John, Paul, George and Ringo as "Members" and Stu and Pete as "Past Members" is the best way to deal with the formatting issue. Remember that the public infobox DOES NOT SAY "Current Members." Do you understnad this, GabeMc??????? Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting point of view. We should also then not put Ringo and George on an equal footing with John and Paul. Anyone could have done what they did, and besides, Ringo is from the Dingle. Radiopathy •talk• 02:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
My "semantics" comment was in reference to the words "are members" or "were members", neither of which is both semantically accurate and non-misleading (for lack of a better word). Again, there is no perfect solution without a change in parameters (which is why there is a problem in logic); we are trying to determine the better of the imperfect alternatives. I respectfully disagree that those who argue against misleading the reader are using a strawman or offering a weak argument. I think naming all six as past members without differentiation is, in fact, misleading to the reader who may be deciding whether to pursue reading the entire article after glancing at the infobox. If the line-up had changed after they achieved worldwide fame, it would not be misleading. That's not editing to the lowest common denominator; it's an attempt to encourage a reader naive about Wikipedia's quality to move beyond the infobox to actually read the article.
All of that aside, is there anyone out there who can tweak the parameters of the infobox for only one article? I recall seeing something similar done but I don't have the technical know-how to discuss it intelligently. If that's possible and agreed upon, that might be a temporary solution until the parameters can be changed. Cresix (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Steelbeard1, to clarify, yes, I do understand that the public infobox says members, absoutely, and once again, I cite logic. If there are two public sections in the infobox for band members, and one is "members" and the other is "past members", then by logic I can deduce that the "members" section implies "current" or "not past". The real issue here is that there isn't a field for "classic line-up", I'm sure we can get that fixed in time, but as of now (20 April 2012), there is no the Beatles and there are no Beatles, therefore there can be no members. So no, that's not semantics Cresix and Steelbeard1, that's basic Deductive reasoning. You, and most who oppose the proposal are using Semantics, IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Cresix, please explain why you think having all six ex-Beatles in the past members section of the infobox is misleading. I think its informative, if I thought there were only four I would learn something, not get confused, unless as I said above, we are writing/editing for idiots. You are trying to make the infobox explain what the article makes perfectly clear. Also, there is the image of JPGR, and the fact that no images of Best or Sutcliffe are anywhere to be found in the article. And mention of them is scant. Who are you trying to not confuse? — GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It's simple. DO YOU WANT STU AND PETE TO BE ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE AND RINGO?????? YES OR NO???? Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Steelbeard1, the answer is no, but you are assuming that listing them all in the same box would do this, and your Argument from Consequences fallacy proves nothing, but to reduce your logic, i.e. Radiopathy's comment above, do you want to put Ringo on the same level as Lennon? — GabeMc (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
But by listing all six as "Past Members", you are implying YES!!! Should the Infobox be killed off entirely because we can't follow the constraints of its formatting???????????????? Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to be an idiot to not know much about The Beatles and realize that there were four of them that the world generally recognizes as The Beatles. My twenty-year-old niece knew that much when she first developed an interest in "60s music", but that was about all she knew until I explained a few things to her. She's a smart young lady but uninformed about Beatles details; I think if she glanced at the infobox and saw six Beatles listed as if they were the Beatles, she would have chuckled and moved on to another source of information. You don't have to be an idiot to be misled by the infobox. Just minimally informed and aware that there may be sources of information better than Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Like I said above, if I thought there were four, then I looked at Wiki and saw six names, I would learn something, and read on, not get all confused and ditch Wikipedia in haste and disgust, that's a silly arguement IMO, no offense. I'll say it one last time, this is all covered at length in the article, and made perfectly clear by the end of the second sentence. If that's confusing, then yeah, you might be an idiot, no offense to your niece. — GabeMc (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
No, not a silly argument. That may be how you would approach the article. It probably would be how I would approach it. But I think that's because we already know lots of details. I don't think that's how most people, not idiots, who are minimally informed about The Beatles would do it. I think most people, who know that there's a lot more than Wikipedia to find out information, would glance at the infobox, realize that something is wrong when six Beatles are listed as if they were the Beatles, and then move on. Cresix (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That is an EXTREMLY SERIOUS ARGUMENT. The Infobox is a summary of what the article is about and we are dealing with the constraints of the infobox which will not be resolved anytime soon. So the current listing is the best we can do. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
FWiW, the online Encylopedia Brittannica's brief overview describes JPGR as "principal members" with a brief mention of the other two "early members". That really is the only logical way to do this, but again, square peg and round hole. Cresix (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason why this cannot be changed now. — GabeMc (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Once again, the template for the infobox will not be altered anytime soon. We have to deal with the way it was formatted. So the current listing should stand under these circumstances. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
By "changed now", do you mean the terminology used in the infobox (e.g., "principal members")? If so, I'm curious, how? If you mean change all of them to "past members", I disagree and would prefer to leave out naming members altogether. Cresix (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
See the old discussion at [4]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
See the new discussion, which might prove more succsessful, with the increased support it now has. Join in here. — GabeMc (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment The template in its current form simply does not work for this topic. We currently have "Members" and "Past Members" as the headings. That's just stupid, because obviously they're all past members, especially the dead ones. However, for a historical group it's perfectly valid to have a heading saying "Members", which is what the Infobox field "Current members" generates. The word "current" does not appear. What we need for this article are headings saying "Members" and "Earlier members". HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I quote you, from above, "obviously they're all past members", which is my point exactly, so why are we taking such great lengths to re-inventing the wheel here? because the Beatles are special? — GabeMc (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The Beatles were a group that is still very well known, but which no longer exists. That the Infobox forces us to put any names at all in a field it calls "Current members" shows how inappropriate that Infobox is for this group, and for any other group that no longer exists. It's square-peg-in-round-hole stuff. Dumb. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree in principle, but why then, should we put any names into the "members" section for a group that no longer exists? Can you make a good arguement against putting all six names in "Past Members" that does not involve a form of special exception for this band because people love them so much? If not why not? Why should we treat the Beatles different than any other defunct band? I could argue that The Jimi Hendrix Experience had an equally significant influence on modern rock. — GabeMc (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we're actually in fierce agreement here. All now defunct bands important enough to be in Wikipedia should be treated pretty much the same. We should list the "Members" (not "Past members"), meaning those who were major members during the band's period of major success and notability. For the Beatles that's easy. It's John, Paul, George and Ringo. The other two guys come under some other heading. For the Beatles, "Earlier members" would work. We have to find a way around dumb Infoboxes to present reality to the readers. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, an earlier attempt to alter the infobox for the same reason we've been hashing about over and over and over again got rejected. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/Archive_9#Former_members}. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I've haven't read a bigger pile of garbage for quite some time. Do those idiots live under rocks? They certainly don't live in the real world. Infoboxes are one of Wikipedia's ugliest features. HiLo48 (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I said at Pink Floyd some time ago that I never liked the way it was done here, and I'm glad it's finally being pursued down to the finest minutiae. It was never an accurate detailing of the members/past members/dead members. It, and not The Beatles, was the anomaly. The infobox is there to provide an accurate summary for the reader who is not familiar with the topic, not to please the eccentricities of the topic's devotees. Please keep the discussion rolling! Radiopathy •talk• 01:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Pink Floyd is an excellent illustrative case. PF had a well-known classic line-up, but also one founding member whom many would consider essential in setting the group's direction, but who left early and had nothing to do with the group's major releases. And the infobox...lists them all as "Past members". So is it written, so should it be done. - Metalello (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a no-brainer, really. There are no current members, and the field is for current members. 'nuff said! (Thanks to Gabe for notifying about this discussion.) Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
So, you want all six listed as past members? I'm a Beatles generation person. When I talk about bands from that time I say "The members of the band were..." I would never say "The past members were..." And sometimes I'll say "X and Y were also occasional members." We need to find a way to put that kind of natural language in the Infobox, rather than the garbage that gets generated now. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I can sympathize with your desire for an organic kind of structuring for this sort of thing, but until there is a viable solution agreed to in that regard, I don't think we have any option but to list them all as past members, as that's what they are. The idea that a defunct group can have anything other than past members is a logical fallacy. Everyone also needs to keep in mind that the infobox is not a place to give clear-cut information anyway; it exists, like the lede, primarily for assembling important facts about the band in one place for quick reference. It collates information already given in the article The issue of what line-up constitutes the most well-known one becomes clear once you read the first two sentences of the article. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This reminds me of the smartphone commercial where, to make the point of how fast you can do all sorts of things with it, everything anybody relates about what has happened, his neighbor says "so two seconds ago". "Past members" is to indicate band members who are not in the most recent iteration of the band. The most recent iteration of the band is 40 years ago, and for the entirety of its success during the life of the band and since the members people hear and know of as the Beatles are four guys. That's who the Beatles are in the sense that any record or CD or video you put on those are the guys you are going to hear and see, and any discussion of the players and their contributions are going to be these four. The footnote of these two early members to the public's experience of the group has certainly captured the imagination of many in an outsized way, in a what-could've-been way, but presenting their names in a single section of an infobox is not what an infobox is for, as in to present information. Forget what this or that section is called (because the point of Wikipedia is that we're just a couple discussions away from being able to put that in the past tense too) and think about what the distinct sections are intended to inform the reader about at a glance. For an extant band that has had several iterations over the decades (as virtually every decades-running band does), it's indicating that the most recent incarnations of the group do not include these in this secondary category, even if they are the members most associated with the act, but rather the members in the primary category, who are the ones you're likely to be reading about in current news items and who are the ones whose careers are associated with the act of late. Abrazame (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You are asking the infobox to explain what only the article can. They are all past members, because the group is defunct, its that simple. — GabeMc (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You are focusing solely on the wording "Past members" and ignoring the wording of the other section, which does not say "Current members". It says "Members". As in "This is who (notable group) are". But for the curiosity of historical prologue, Sutcliffe and Best are not "Members" of The Beatles as in the band notable enough to have their own article at Wikipedia. On the other hand, "Past members" serves (and states it is there) to indicate band members from a prior iteration of the band. Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr are not a prior iteration of The Beatles—those four are what by any measure are The Beatles, and this is especially true in a box intended to quickly impart info. Glomming the other two names in with these four is not an accurate presentation of this info. Abrazame (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, every other defunct band on Wikipedia, without a single exception that I have found, has all members, whether from the latest iteration or not, listed as "Past members". That's the current usage. There is no strong reason to make an exception for the Beatles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalello (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the Beatles should not be an exception. They should be the rule. (Well, the way they are described should be the rule.) Nobody describes ALL members of a defunct band as "Past members" in normal conversation. Nor should Wikipedia. And don't tell me the template can't cope. Fix it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Then answer this, is Lennon a Beatle or was he a Beatle, because he himself seemed to think that post-1970, he was not a Beatle, was he wrong? He used past tense to decribe when he was a Beatle. Would you ask someone "who are the members of the Beatles" or "who was in the Beatles?" See the problem with tense. — GabeMc (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that usage is quite normal, but it's not normal usage to describe members of a defunct band as past members. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
That fact is not an occurrence in nature, or an act of God, it's the result of someone/s acting on what many in this thread consider a faulty perspective, at least when viewed through the prism of the distinction they see is important to make and a reasonable use of the distinction in the infobox. Every other defunct band on Wikipedia that I can think of has happened to have the same members throughout the duration, so all the names would have been in the same category whatever you called it. This very argument at The Beatles is precisely why one would understand the value of making such a distinction—or, conversely, the lack of value in automatically lumping Sutcliffe and Best in with the rest of the Beatles.
Let me take it from this angle: it's 1968 and Wikipedia magically exists (in print form). Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best are listed under "Past Members" and the other four under "Members". This is the way it has been since 1962 (1961 in the case of Sutcliffe if I understand correctly) and the way it will be for another year or two. The entirety of the band's notability—the threshold, after all, for an article that then elevates otherwise non-notables Sutcliffe and Best into an encyclopedia—"Members" have been the four on the records, in the movies, on tour, et al. "New" music is released in 1995 and 1996, "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love", wherein the members of the band rising up the charts and heard on the radio are the four. They are not past members if they are actively in new release with material written and performed together (regardless of when); there is no grounds to consider that Lennon is not a member of The Beatles tearing up the Hot 100, despite the fact that he has passed away. Yet Sutcliffe and Best are not. What is the Beatles anyway, when they give up touring and become, effectively, a recording artist, that they are not when those notable recordings hit the Top 5 on the charts?
That's what I meant about the TV commercial: everything we are entitled to add to Wikipedia is "past", by virtue of the fact that it has to have happened and been published or reported or what-have-you; and yet, while we may write using the past tense, the very point of writing about the things is to associate the subjects with the notability. Someone is not a former victim. When people talk about the Reagan Administration, they don't use the terminology that these are former or past members, the assumption is made—as we do with the part of the Beatles' infobox that indicates the "Years active"—that the reader understands they are reading about something in the past, and then they list them, and the dates they were active members. The only way I can see combining all "six members of the Beatles" (come on) as a presentation of information, rather than pedantic obfuscation, is if we append the names with the years active, following precedent in the political articles. Abrazame (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Change the infobox template. There are a lot of defunct bands all of whose members are "past". Get some kind of "recognised classic line-up" field in there, and a field for "previous members" (and maybe even one for "later members" for those bands that re-formed with a slightly different line-up). If an infobox template doesn't fit our needs, we change the template, not try to make what we do fit it! It's like the gory version of Cinderella at the moment, with people cutting off toes and slicing bits off their feet to try and make them fit into the glass slipper. (Which incidentally, should have been an ermine slipper (vair) and not the similar-sounding verre (glass) from the French Cendrillon. There, I bet you didn't know that ...) Pesky (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The last attempt to change the infobox template was rejected. The new proposal to change the template at [5] is developing into a discussion almost as long as this one. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution

How about this variation of a proposal from IllaZilla, its certainly not confusing: — GabeMc (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles
Past members1960–1970
John Lennon
Paul McCartney
George Harrison
1962-1970
Ringo Starr

1960–1961
Stuart Sutcliffe
1960–1962
Pete Best
What is the aim of this supposed to be, to make people feel better? Because there's no logic or information being connoted by the presence of a space between the four names at the top and the two at bottom. This is still called an info box. How about we present some info, as I suggested immediately above, and list the members chronologically by their membership with the years of their membership listed in parentheses afterward, as we do when, for example, discussing the service of a presidential administration? Abrazame (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not normal usage to describe members of a defunct band as past members. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not the person proposing the above solution, my comment above is in disagreement with it; the person proposing failed to sign the proposal. I agree that the four famous Beatles should not be shunted to a box headed "Past members" as if they were replaced, which is what the distinction between the two boxes was intended to convey. Abrazame (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to me. I need to have it explained exactly what the problem is that HiLo48 and Abrazame have with this. Surely a defunct band can only have "past members"? Of course they should be shunted into a box headed "Past members", they are no longer in the Beatles, having all voluntarily left the Beatles. An analogy: Gary Wisker was a "past member" of Fields of the Nephilim during their "classic lineup". But he was not replaced as they never got another sax player. So to insist that "past members" should always imply that the member was replaced is a too simplistic view of the universe.
I wonder whether all those objecting to the "past member" suggestion are living in wishful-thinking la-la land whereby they think the Beatless somehow are still going on, a bit like how the simpleminded think of Jesus Christ. --Matt Westwood 10:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
No, and don't be so fucking rude and demeaning!!!!! Read what I have bloody well said, turn your fucking brain on, and try a little harder to understand!!!!!!!!!!!! Nobody ever says "The Beatles were a band whose past members were John, Paul, George and Ringo". They say "The Beatles were a band whose members were John, Paul, George and Ringo." Get it? Or do I have to put it in even smaller words? HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Matt, please try to comment on suggestions and proper application of policy and not on editors. No one has tried to pretend that the Beatles still exist, and I think we're all mature enough to talk this through like adults. Let's all try to have some patience and talk this through in a civilized fashion. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems obvious that this is not going to work out and considering constraints we have with the current formatting of the infobox. Let's keep it the way it has been. It's simple and easily understood. Agsin, the fact that the group is defunct and three members are deceased is irrelevant when we are trying to summarise the infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Idiotic comment. If it was simple and easily understood, we wouldn't be having this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you nuts??? Do you seriously want to put Stu and Pete on equal footing with John, Paul, George and Ringo?????? If we can't resolve it, let's kill the infobos altogether. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
To make all of this as complicated as possible :) here is my rank ordering of preferences (from most preferred to least preferred): (1) leave the infobox as it is right now; (2) remove all reference to members in any form (current or former) but leave everything else the same, with the proviso that if the template's parameters are changed we consider those changes; (3) no infobox but place the image in approximately the same location; (4) the proposed solution in this subsection with the current image in the infobox placed as close as possible. Cresix (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with the above proposal? Its not confusing, and it makes clear which members were in the band during which years, I thought the main arguement against was clarity, well that's not an issue with this solution. — GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit I had to think hard about whether your version would be preferable to no infobox, and on reflection I think it might be. I really didn't mean to suggest that there is anything wrong with it; it's just not my preference. Most of all I prefer that there is no suggestion that there is no distinction between JPG&R and the other two. That extra space in your version helps, but not enough in my opinion. In the absence of a change in the template's parameters, I could live with it though if that's the consensus. Cresix (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Cresix, to clarify, I am proposing a full infobox, I just only copied the relevant part here, but the infobox would contain all the info it currently does. — GabeMc (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and understood. I still prefer the current infobox if the parameters can't be changed. But as I said, I can accept your version. Cresix (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we can forget about changing the parameters, this solution requires no change, yet still conveys the core line-up of JPGR while not disregarding Pete and Stu, and not misleading readers into thinking there are members of a band that's been defunct for over 42 years. — GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll II

  • POLL 2 IS CLOSED PLEASE SEE POLL 3 BELOW — GabeMc (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I propose the above solution to our problem, which solves all outstanding issues as far as I can see. — GabeMc (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support ~ This solution delineates JPG&R from Stu and Pete while making all members past. — GabeMc (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This does not reflect the proper sequence of when each member joined The Beatles. Why put Ringo above Stu and Pete and Ringo was the last Beatle to join the group? The best way is the way it always has been with "Members" being John, Paul, George and Ringo" and "Past Members" Stu and Pete. Also, the blank space needs to be explained to the uninitiated. The long-standing format is perfectly understandable to the uninitiated. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, why put Ringo above Best, you tell me, that's what you want to do isn't it? Isn't that the status quo? Isn't Ringo listed above Best and Stu right now? They are all past members Steel, how can you even debate that? — GabeMc (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I need a sledge hammer to deal with your thick head, GabeMc. For the umpteenth time, the public infobox says "MEMBERS" for John, Paul, George and Ringo amd "PAST MEMBERS" for Stu and Pete. Even a total idiot would understand this as the infobox also says the band was active from 1960 to 1970. So it would be obvious that the band is defunct from the years active. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Yet you cannot answer the simple question, why does a defunct band have any members at all? — GabeMc (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, there is already an entire article devoted to the minutae of the Beatles members line-ups, List of members of bands featuring members of The Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Partial Support ~ Why not have the members listed in order of joining, as is done with every other band, but with years active listed to the right of (not below) each name. And make this the new standard for all bands. Metalello (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment ~ This is the first Wikipedia discussion I've taken part in and I am shocked and stunned by the level of personal vindictiveness on display from all sides. We're constructing the first global encyclopedia, I would have expected a touch more decorum. Metalello (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I really prefer Metalello's idea of "members listed in order of joining" (preferably with begin and end dates where possible). For years as a music journalist since the late '80s I have become used to that as a standard used in pre-Wikipedia reference works, like the Rolling Stone rock encyclopedias and other reference works, like band bios encompassing such history. Also, this makes the personnel akin to a timeline natural to compare to a chronological discography or gigography. Tearaway (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Tearaway, this is an attempt to compromise, and what you and Metalello suggest would be even more difficult to acheive consensus on, IMO. What I don't understand is why you supported moving all six members into Past but that you oppose this compromise. — GabeMc (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - list all as past members; if any one wasn't aware of Pete or Stu prior to coming to the article, the wikilinks will guide them to further reading. Radiopathy •talk• 01:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
But then you are opposing making the infobox more accurate than it is now, and why do you think we could earn consensus on that? Should I start a third poll? — GabeMc (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Query

Why is it not worth the effort to add to the infobox template's parameters to increase its flexibility and precision? I did so last year with Template:Infobox historic site with happy results. I understand any move to add to the parameters for this widely used infobox may meet with more resistance, but it might also meet with widespread support. Is the consensus view here that it's not worth trying?—DCGeist (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

DC, discussions there have hit a brick wall, starting in August of last year. This solution requires no change to the template, and its accurate and informative without being misleading or POV in any way. — GabeMc (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
DC here is a link to last year's discussion on altering the template, and here is a link to the current discussion. — GabeMc (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll III

Lets see how much support this one gets. — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support ~ I believe it currently satisfies nearly everyone's concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The Beatles
MembersPrincipal
John Lennon
Paul McCartney
George Harrison
Ringo Starr
Other
Stuart Sutcliffe (1960–61)
Pete Best (1960–62)

* Leave it - it's gone on just a bit long already. Radiopathy •talk• 02:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - sorry, it was the middle of the night and I thought I'd seen too much of the same thing. Radiopathy •talk• 16:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
What? You were egging it on above, are you serious? At least take a stance after a fellow editor has made the effort, and listened to your suggestions. FTR, 28 minutes ago you said "list all as past members", and 25 hours ago you said, "Please keep the discussion rolling", and now the proposed change is exactly as you suggested yet you don't support it. Are you playing some kind of game Radio? — GabeMc (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

* Support - It's clear, readable, and most importantly, accurate. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
*Oppose as it gives equal footing to minor members Stu and Pete which I strongly oppose. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that its even the job of the infobox to do this, yet I still found a way, but are you suggesting that Stu's one year in the band implies equal footing with Lennon's decade, or Starr's eight years? That makes no sense IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Also, 1.5 hours before this oppose you wrote "Oppose - This does not reflect the proper sequence of when each member joined The Beatles. Why put Ringo above Stu and Pete and Ringo was the last Beatle to join the group?" — GabeMc (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The infobox summarizes the article. Once again, The Beatles became famous as John, Paul, George and Ringo. Stu and Pete are footnotes and should remain footnotes. The present consensus formatting does just that because they left the group before it became famous. That is way Stu and Pete are listed as "past members." Do you always want to pick a fight with those who disagree with you????? Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
No I don't want to fight, I thought we were discussing this in good-faith. Please explain how this confuses the reader? A quick glance and you can see that Best and Stu were in for the first two years only, and left pre-1963, and by the end of the second sentence of the lede, the "classic line-up" is clearly established. What more do you want? If a reader isn't willing to read the infobox, then more than the first two sentences then I wouldn't waste my time writing/editing for that person, just my opinion. I think you can't bring yourself to call them past members, just admit it. — GabeMc (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my logic above. Hot Stop 03:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
If by, "per my logic above" you mean "no compelling argument for switching this, and doing so would just confuse readers", I would say 1) the compelling arguement is that John Lennon isn't a member of the Beatles, and 2) You havn't explained why you think this current version "confuses" the reader. — GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Does the fact that none of these proposals by you gained any traction mean anything to you? Do people actually refer to the Beatles "The band whose past members were?" You need to take a minute to breathe and consider people's arguments, instead of just badgering us to death. Hot Stop 04:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I don't want to badger you, but I do have the right to question your reasoning, and to ask for clarification. How does this current proposal confuse the reader? And FTR, the first straw poll was basically a draw, with a few of the neutrals leaning this way. So to say it didn't have traction is incorrect, its just that fighting an entrenched status quo is always difficult. — GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment (verging on thinking about support, maybe). It's accurate, yes; it's simple, yes; it's easily applicable to all groups. But I prefer the idea of a template with fields for "principal members", with maybe "Other members" (with dates) as an extra field. I don't agree with the idea that we have to adapt ourselves to comply with infoboxes, rather than the other way around. They are our tools, not our masters ;P Pesky (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC) (moving to support, as it's changed)
We cannot decide the template issue here, that battle has already been lost, here and here, we have to make the best use of our current template until that changes. — GabeMc (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Contrary to what Steelbeard says, this makes a clear distinction between the Fab Four, on the one hand, and Best and Sutcliffe, on the other. However, there is no need for the line that says "Past members". There are obviously no "present members", and the dates given make it clear that the whole thing is in the past. -- Alarics (talk) 05:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
For the record, the original proposal in this subsection was changed. [6] Hot Stop 06:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
True, but the comment still supports my assertion that this is a good compromise. — GabeMc (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support this newer version (following heads-up to this change). This is good, now; it's very clear and I can't see it giving readers mental hiccups. FYI, I'm a high-functioning autistic, and have taught many people on the autism-spectrum, and try to act as kinda go-between, etc., and always try to take into account how things in the 'pedia will be understood by people from both neurotypical and A-spectrum points of view. This one does it very well. Pesky (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the newest revision. Having a "Principal line-up" heading should clear up everyone's concerns -- we acknowledge that the band is defunct, that two guys named Best and Sutclfife were in the band in the early 60s, and that the most well-known line-up is the one given in the lede. One quibble I would have is that, technically, Lennon quit the band on or around 20 September of '69, and the so-called "Threetles" did some recording in early 1970 for the Get Back/Let It Be project. Unless we want to extend all the active dates to 1975, when the legal/business partnership was dissolved by an English court, I think that fact ought to be acknowledged by adjusting Lennon's dates. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point Evan, Lennon was not active with the band in 1970, I'll adjust the date. — GabeMc (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Lennon's 1969 "departure" was kept hush-hush because Allen Klein negotiated a new recording contract with EMI for The Beatles and that was kept from the public so, technically, Lennon was still with The Beatles until Paul's 1970 official breakup announcement. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current infobox gives all the information a reader needs to know. This latest proposed box is too cumbersome with dates, past members, principal line-up, etc. This box would work with a band whose line-up was constantly changing such as The Miami Showband, but not for The Beatles whose members John, Paul, George and Ringo became household names.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak support on the grounds that this tells it like it is, but on the understanding that this technique is probably only going to be a one-off, based on the way people treat these hooligans as demigods. :-) I can't see the same sort of fuss being made over other bands, but perhaps that's to be expected and not a problem after all. --Matt Westwood 07:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Congratulations GabeMc. That's exactly what we need. I cannot understand the Opposes. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There are 4 Beatles, ask any Indonesian you know. :) The Beatles are bigger overseas today then they have ever been, at least in some people's homes, OMG. But whoever the two were who stormed out/ died/ left too early/ got married/ whatever, nobody knows about them, there are 4 Beatles on the crossing, and messing up the list with dates so there is no idea who was who until you've read 6 dates (I know there are more, but you have to look at about 6 before you have an idea of what is what) is not a clear presentation. Sure official members are cool to include, but it's best separated by notability as it is now, rather than chronology which only a tiny minority can relate to (not saying it's bad to be expert and know the dates, but that's not approachable to the public). Looks awesome to have the 4 Beatles, and then 'who?' listed separately this way, Approachable! Penyulap ☏ 09:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment and concern--We tried adding dates to group members awhile back and that got ultimately rejected. The current formatting is the best solution under the constraints we are dealing with. As for the "other members" subheading that opens up a can of worms because of substitute drummers Jimmie Nicol and Andy White and was George Martin considered a "fifth Beatle"? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose--With the above concerns, put me down as "oppose" because the change will not pass muster. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
George Martin was never a member of the band, so don't be facetious. Neither were Nicol and White, so it's less a can of worms and more an... empty can? I don't know; it's too early in the morning for me to start mixing metaphors, but the fact is that only six people were ever part of a group called the Beatles (barring the irrelevant-for-our-purposes Quarrymen, obviously). The infobox field is for members, so how about we... I don't know, list the members there? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 11:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Neglecting one-time members from the infobox simply because thay did not play as much of a role is madness every way you look at it and completely violates the infobox guidelines. This solution addresses the concerns about priorities and is clear in its message. It is probably the best solution that we have at the moment to address Sutcliffe and Best. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  11:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Lennon 1960-1970? I think not.---andreasegde (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Now we have a debate going on as to when Lennon left The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The dates represent "active" years, Lennon was not active with the Beatles in 1970, that fact is not debatable, its easily sourced. — GabeMc (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support About as good as it's going to get. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support From reading the comments in this and the other polls, I don't see how a better solution may be put forward with their being a strong desire to highlight the iconic Fab Four. Tearaway (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Quite clear - good work, GabeMc! jmcw (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - This one seems to solve all of the problems. "Principal line-up" makes things unequivocal as to the roles of Best and Sutcliff. Good work, GabeMc. Cresix (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for now. It could be the first step towards solving the problem - the box now looks right. The remainder of the problem is to do with semantic markup (i.e. semantic wiki markup, not particularly semantic HTML). I believe that there are several projects to do with the semantic web that use Wikipedia info boxes to obtain categorised data about the article subjects. Semantically, what we now state is that there are seven entries under past_members, two of whom are 'Principal line–up' and 'Other members' Messrs line-up and members will appear to semantic data harvesting software to have been past members of The Beatles. There is a world of difference between putting text into bold type and labelling text with a meaningful heading. Therefore the discussion should continue at Template talk:Infobox musical artist until the fields and labels of the info box are altered to be in line with this proposal. If this solution is carried forward and implemented, and the info box is never updated, then this will be just an ugly hack that actually reduces the usefulness of info boxes in particular and Wikipedia in general. --Nigelj (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment See "When Lennon left The Beatles" below for a complication which may derail this possible solution. Also, it may have hit a brick wall at [7]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, theoretically almost anything can be done by consensus if it doesn't have glaring policy violations such as BLP issues. So, IMHO, if the consensus here is to make the change, and unless there is an overwhelming consensus to prevent it on the Infobox's talk page, I think it can be done according to what is decided here unless/until someone with a lot of authority steps in and says otherwise. I don't mean to insult the infobox purists, but it was hard enough to come to an agreement here. If the strong consensus holds up here, I say let's do it and let others fight it out elsewhere if they wish. Cresix (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Also see the template at [8] with what it states. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Steelbeard1, with all due respect, this is meaningless as the article was already in defiance of the MoS and template guidlines, so this change should not matter to anyone who already excepted breaking the guildines for the Beatles infobox, e.g. "current_member field is inappropriate for defunct bands". If you really wanna follow the MoS and the template guidlines then we are back to listing all six in past members by order of joining without active dates. — GabeMc (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The MoS is descriptive, not prescriptive. In most cases I am in fact a proponent of following it, but in this case working around it seems the best option by far. Ditto for template guidelines.Joefromrandb (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Put all former members together has the band as never reformed since the breakup--F4280 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but per above, I see no need to have "past members" in the blue highlight (but I would not insist on its removal. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
We have no way (that I know of) to remove the "past members" text from the blue highlight strip, it would require a template alteration that has already been soundly rejected. — GabeMc (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
We could list it under members. Hot Stop 03:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
True, but a defunct band has no members, so that would undermine the very nature of this compromise. — GabeMc (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Gabe - I disagree a little. The problem before was the fact that there were two separate headings, giving the impression that "Stu and Pete are the past members of the band, while J, P, G, and R are the members". Without two separate fields, listing the six of them as "Members" is not inherently misleading or inaccurate, and follows standard usage of the English language. The "Past" part of the designation is implicit in the fact that it is a defunct band, and need not be restated before listing them. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - i think it should be like this, tbh i thought Paul McCartney was the first to leave the band? Tony (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: In plain English, we obviously speak of a defunct band's "members", not its "past members." We make clear the status of the band and their membership in it through the simple use of verbs in the past tense where called for ("he was a member", "its members included"); we don't speak of "past members" of a defunct band—that's not good English. The addition of the dates to the field obviously removes the slightest bit of confusion about the temporal status of the membership in this case.

However, due to the idiosyncrasies of the template in question (and those who stoutly defend the sanctity of its existing parameters, largely on the basis of a deep, perhaps willful confusion between the problem of biased POV and the ordinary application of editorial judgment), this odd locution of "past members" has become a norm among Wikipedia music articles. In ordinary English, it almost only occurs when distinguishing between members of a currently active band, and even then, the customary phrase is "former members."

So...every other aspect of the proposal, it appears to me, has achieved a consensus in support. Well done, everyone. The one outstanding question is whether the header should read (read to our readers, that's what counts, not what the parameter happens to say) "Members"—in line with good, plain English—or "Past members"—in line with present Wikipedia norms. Either choice is rational, either choice is acceptable, both have their pros and cons, neither is worth getting overwrought about. This is as close as we'll get to a simple a/b weight of opinion question in this matter. Once it's resolved, the proposal can be put into place with a strong basis (this discussion) on which to defend it.—DCGeist (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

  • For the record, I support the "compromise" but only if they're referred to as members. Per DCGeist above, past members is poor English. Hot Stop 06:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well yes, its a basic redundancy that really ought to be eliminated. It should be taken as read that a defunct band's members are, by definition, "past". --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to give my opinion on the topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, the discussion is about whether "Past members" should be included below "Members" in the infobox, right? I'm very afraid this is absolutely non-sense, as the band has disbanded, so all its members are past members; all should be in a single "Members" field without years of activity in parentheses, because this is excessive detail suitable for the main body of the article (not suitable for the lead, though). Hula Hup (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Support looks messy but its a great idea and would be the first of its kind Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Support IF it reads "Members" As several editors above have observed, "Past members" is poor English and a complete redundancy when discussing a disbanded group. On a side, but related, note, I've grown increasingly dismayed by the self-appointed guardians of the template, who resist all attempts to improve the template and make it more useful--as if determining who the principal members of a band were gets us into some treacherous "point of view" minefield, when in fact it's the sort of decision we make thousands of times a day when writing an encyclopedia. As a result, over at The Clash, where I've put in a lot of work, we've been stuck with an infobox that accords Pete Howard and Nick Sheppard the exact same status as Joe Strummer and Mick Jones. That's just simply not an effective infobox. What's happening here sets a valuable precedent for improvements that have been long delayed--let's make the most of it. DocKino (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Careful using that word "precedent". That might be "fightin' words" for some of those guardians. :) Cresix (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I used it in full knowledge of that possibility. The fact is, they've been "fightin'" for years. Seems it may at last be time to do a little "fightin'" back. DocKino (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - I like this solution, as there are no "Present members", but it makes the distinction of what the primary lineup was. However, it's an imperfect solution because of the way the infobox template currently is constructed, where the only options are "Current" and "Former" members. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Support; Sorry-- I have come to the discussion late. I do like the dates. It has always been my understanding that the infobox and media should reflect the text. Should a reader have any question about the dates, all they need do is read the lead section of the article or further. Some years ago I had the same issue with the Dixie Chicks, who were initially a quartet with a different mix of members.. we left out the original lineup almost altogether but I am glad to see here the inclusion of Stuart and Pete as is above. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Support ~ "Members" for the header, with dates to the right, and ideally no separation between "principal" and others - in my opinion the dates do that work - but if consensus accepts "principal" etc. then so be it. And in the long run let this become the standard for all groups: the inclusion of dates eliminates all POV and other disputes. Metalello (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Support - I would say you have consensus for this change. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Conditional Support - It's the best we can do with the formatting. But if the infobox formatting police decides to take action, we should go back to the previously decided consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have your support Steelbeard1, and I don't think we need to worry about the "infobox formatting police", as we have achieved overwhelming support here, and they cannot overrule our consensus any more than we can overrule their's. — GabeMc (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, "It's the best we can do with the formatting" is an understatement. Assuming you could write the code yourself, what if anything, would you change and why? — GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Support the "principle"/"other" format; alleviates the (non)issue of a band that continues to sell records and influence popular culture having no active members while indicating which members were part of the most recognized line up and which were part of the formative group. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - as the different years makes it appear that the Beatles were active without John for a year. GoingBatty (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't. They don't do that at all. Such date ranges are conventionally taken to mean from some point in the initial year until some point in the final year. Think of standard birth-and-death year ranges for individuals in most every serious work of nonfiction you've ever read: when just the years are given, you know very well not to assume they all mean "January 1" or "December 31" or "Same-Exact-Month Same-Exact-Day". This oppose should be retracted.—DCGeist (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Only if you assume that an active date must mean the band was active through 31 December of that year, which it generally doesn't, but you are not alone in taking issue with the dates. I started an "Active dates" section below, please contribute, your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Please allow me to reword: the different years makes it appear that the Beatles were known as a trio from sometime in 1969 to sometime in 1970. GoingBatty (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the issue is not how they were "known" at the time; the dates indicate what the reality was at the time. And, in fact, there were three members during that time because Lennon had quit, even though this was not public knowledge at the time. I don't see the problem. Cresix (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support There are no current members of this band and special pleading for this one out of thousands constitutes a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Past members or Members

I think there are some very good points above about "past members" being a redundant phrase and poor/uncommon english, and as Evan points out, the issue is remediated by the use of one field versus two. So while I am not opposed in principle to listing all six ex-Beatles in the "current members" field, this is only because readers will see "members", not "current members", and that Stu and Pete are not singled out as "past/former" while the others are not. If I could change the template to "former members" we could improve the language, though "former" would still be redundant in this case. So perhaps listing them all as members is the best possible solution that satisfies the widest consensus. However, looking through the "supports" above, I see several that included listing them in the "past members" field as a reason to support. While I assume this would not be a deal breaker, I ask here if the community agrees, that this change would not undermine the reasoning behind a good many "supports" above. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My support still stands. "Members" is, IMO, the best solution without there being some kind of alteration to the infobox parameters (which isn't going to happen). We have to make do with what we have, and I think your suggestion above is as perfect as it's going to get. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep. The way it is as I see it right now--with "Members" leading off, then "Principal line-up" and "Other" as sub-headings below--is almost surely as good as it's going to get. "Past members" = bad. "Members" = so, so good. Let's start here, at this Featured Article, with proper English. And then let's move on, improve, and educate. DocKino (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Principal line-up" and "Other" is good, it side-steps the issue with elegance. There is mention of a Fifth Beatle, but that does not necessarily suggest membership in the group. If a couple is going out, and an extra person tags along with them, they might be referred to as a "third wheel" or some such, but it doesn't suggest membership in the couple. The phrase 'fifth Beatle' can exclude that person from the Beatles as easily as it can include them. Penyulap ☏ 21:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, but perhaps "other" should be "other members" or at least "others". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Joe, "members" is redundant in a category titled "members", and "others" would be a double-plural since "members" is already plural. — GabeMc (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
"Others" seems to read better. Are you implying that it wouldn't be grammatically valid? Joefromrandb (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, because it would read "Members:Others", since the subsection title is already plural. It makes me wonder though if we need "line-up" at all, why not "Members:Principal, Other". — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
That may be better yet! Joefromrandb (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I gave it a shot. We'll see if others agree. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Active dates

Some editors have expressed concern that perhaps the dates should be left out of the infobox. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep the dates; they help clarify the membership and ultimately, the contributions of each person to the band. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - OK with the dates for Stu and Pete, not OK with different ending dates for the Fab Four. GoingBatty (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Good suggestions, I don't necessarily disagree, and more than one person has expressed concern about that issue, since Lennon's earlier quit date is not described in the lede. However, I also tend to think that if readers are confused by 1969 for Lennon, then they should read our article, or at least the section about the break-up, and discover that he quit on 20 September 1969, and the other three did a tiny bit of work in Jan 1970. For all intents and purposes, Let It Be was a posthumous album, and if the public does not understand that now, then they can learn it here. Its well verified, as this is one of the best sourced articles you will ever find, not just on Wiki, anywhere, IMO. Having said that, I also think the dates clutter the infobox anyway, and that it would look cleaner without them. On the other hand, several editors (who supported) specifically asked for the dates during the consesus discussion, so I guess lets see if anything develops here, and perhaps I'll do another poll to gage consensus for the dates. FTR, I think your idea is the cleanest so far, so thanks for contributing. — GabeMc (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
GoingBatty, lets try it your way and see if it creates any decent, or concern. I made the change, it looks better IMO, thanks again for weighing in. — GabeMc (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep the dates After careful consideration, I feel there's no question about it. Despite the "cleaner look" of the latter suggestion, the general opinion here was in favor of including the dates without exception. There's two main reasons why it's a better choice than having dates for Others but not for Principal:
  • Consistency: Need I say more? It would just be very strange to give more detail for secondary figures than for primary figures. Provide the same level of detail in the infobox. That's proper.
  • Accuracy: Not including the dates for the principal members strongly implies that they were all active in the band for the span of the "Active dates" provided immediately above (1960–1970). That's blatantly inaccurate for Starr.
Consider the latter point more generally. Any format we apply here, if it's viable at its root, should be applicable to other band infoboxes. So consider The Clash, which I've mentioned here before. The principal members would be Joe Strummer, Mick Jones, Paul Simonon, Topper Headon, and Terry Chimes. There would be very little debate about that, and that's not just my "personal opinion"--those are precisely the five members inducted by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. But those five were most definitely not all active in the band during its active dates of 1976–1986. Giving the specific dates for each is essential information for this improved infobox format. For instance, the principal drummers: Terry Chimes (1976, 1977, 1982–83); Topper Headon (1977–82).
I understand the "big" problem here: What end date to give for Lennon? It's not that big a problem. We discuss, decide, agree, settle. Maybe someone new comes along a year later arguing for the other number. That's okay. We can deal with that--we deal with that here all the time.
So: I'm swayed by the arguments in favor of 1969 for Lennon's end active date. That's the year, according to the sources we cite in the article, that he deliberately ended his active involvement in the band on a willfully permanent basis. The general opinion, it seems to me, supports that view. I see PositivelyJordan below makes the argument that because Lennon recorded (in 1969) material for Let It Be, which was released in 1970, that he should be considered active in The Beatles in 1970. The logic behind that argument was conclusively defeated in the great "Free as a Bird" debate. A band and its members' active dates depend on their activity--logical!--not on when the product of their activity is eventually released (or not released) by a record company. DocKino (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The few months between when John secretly left and when Paul publicly announced the end of the Beatles doesn't seem significant enough to warrant emphazising in the infobox. (Too bad it wasn't all in the same calendar year.) I also think having years listed in the infobox will encourage editors to make good faith additions for "activity" dates for Anthology (despite the previous debate). GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's too bad they didn't all depart in the same calendar year, but it is what it is. Providing the raw dates doesn't "emphasize" the facts, just records them. As far as Anthology goes, we've kept it out of the lead section this long; I'm sure we can handle the occasional infobox incursion (we've done just fine in holding the line on "rock, pop" in Genres).
You're not troubled by the fact that eliminating the dates leaves a result that will strongly suggest to readers who read the infobox first (or only) that Starr was in the band from 1960 to 1970? DocKino (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Although I personally prefer including the dates, omitting the dates doesn't suggest anything about the active years of any member of the band, including Ringo. Cresix (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree there, Cresix. If you consider the overall design of the infobox, not far above the listing of band members it gives "Active dates: 1960–1970." If you provide dates for some members but not others below that, it does indeed strongly suggest that those without specified dates were involved for the entire span of the band's existence. That's the logic of such a design, but the logical conclusion in this case is, obviously, incorrect. That's why I'll weigh in on the side of keep the dates.—DCGeist (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep the dates. This is important information. Lennon left in 1969 and his contribution to Let It Be was therefore partial. The fact that this is contrary to what people in general believe (or worse, "want to believe", poor sad religious hysterics that they must be :-) is more than reason to include it. Don't forget that the Beatles, when all said and done, were just another rock band with the same interpersonal dynamics as any other rock band. And history tends to be more complicated than appears on the surface. That's what an encyclopedia is for. --Matt Westwood 06:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that 1995 should also be listed as an active date. They released two new songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmreelriley (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This notion has been raised previously and debated extensively. A consensus was reached that, although "new" singles were released and credited to the band in the mid-1990s, it is inaccurate to state that The Beatles were active during that period. DocKino (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Principal Line-up, or just Principal

Since our heading reads "Members", I wonder if we shouldn't omit "line-up" altogether, so it reads "Members: Principal, Other". Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer "Principal Line-up", as "Principal" alone may leave the question open as to whether all six members were active within the group at the same time. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you think the use of "line-up" suggests there was once an "other" line-up of Stu and Pete? — GabeMc (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe it's a subjective thing; all I can say is that "Principal line-up" and "Other" reads more clearly to me than the present version. Perhaps having "Principal line-up" and "Other members" as headings would be too heavy-handed? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, my above thoughts really only hold true if we take the dates out, as would be my preference. As is, the amount of confusion it can cause is limited to people who can't read Arabic numerals. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, well, lets see what others think. Also, I am trying to avoid the redundancy of "Members", since the section is already entitled that. — GabeMc (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Principal: Just that and Other. That's all that's needed grammatically and logically. And it makes the identical format work for other bands that have discernibly principal members, but not necessarily one-and-only-one principal line-up.—DCGeist (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Gould 2008, p. 509.
  2. ^ Harry 2000b, p. 102.
  3. ^ Lewisohn 1992, p. 22.
  4. ^ Gladwell 2008, pp. 47–49.
  5. ^ a b Lewisohn 1992, pp. 18–22.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_28&oldid=1136229209"