Template talk:The Beatles albums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject The Beatles (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This Beatles-related template is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


I was wondering on what compilations should really be in this template, seeing as there is a separate template for their compilations. Anyone? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the American albums are compilations really, but they're not on the compilations template. I say we merge the compilations template into this one. There really is no need to have so many Beatles templates. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the compilations template is very detailed and really shouldn't be merged into this template.
P.S. I love how you say there is no need to have so many Beatles templates then suggest a new template for the EPs, which would be much smaller than the current compilations template. You need to reconsider your positions. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
NO, rather the Compilations in this Template should be removed, and only appear in the Compilations Template. Only problem with this is the "Core Album" marking of Past Masters. I'll work on that. CentraCross (talk) 09:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, we can't remove all of the compilations. Besides Past Masters, there are some of the compilations that people wouldn't think to look for in the compilations template. For example, I know a person or two who think that the Yellow Submarine Songtrack is a studio album (I don't know why). I think Anthology and Love fit that criterion as well. What think? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe The Beatles' Christmas Album as well. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah You're Right. We should try and review the albums and see which ones are different, and deserve to stay. I'll see if I can come up with anything CentraCross (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the early records should be included in this template. I think the only exception may be My Bonnie, but I'm not sure about that. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
And I don't think an album should be in both Templates, unless it can be considered both an Original album and a Compilation (as is the case with Past Masters, Christmas Album and Anthology). The remixes (LIB...Naked, YS Songtrack and Love) should be in this Template, but possibly in another section. CentraCross (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that some would consider an album a compilation while others consider it an original album. The idea is to have people come to either template and find what they are looking for on the first try.
What do you think about My Bonnie? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw what you did: normally I would have scolded you for not discussing it first, but it doesn't look like you did anything I object to. What about the early records? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Since they are Pre-Contract, they might be removed from this Template altogether. The official Catalog begins with the EMI Contract. Also, Couldn't we try and shorten the EP:s list? Of course we should disscuss that below. CentraCross (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The EPs need to be included somewhere. I believe a separate template is appropriate but Democraticmacguitarist believes this is not "user friendly". McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
People are smart enough to look for the EPs in this template; they do not need to be moved. As for the pre-contract albums, I think it is right to remove them. What about Sessions? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added the '1' album to the template because. Sure, it contains previously released material, but it is a very notable compilation album for a full list of reasons. Record sales blah blah blah. Of cause you'll instantly disagree with me when i say the following - it's canon. (EEK!) OK i take that back. Well, i've decided there are quite a few reasons for it's addition by me and i wouldn't want to bore you with them. I expect it to be gone by tommorow. Signed and timed: -- (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(Hope You excuse me for swapping Column) To remove the EP:s is not really what I had in mind... How about if we keep "Long tall sally" and MMT, refering the rest to the The Beatles Discography#Extended Plays? After all, only the Two contain any original material. The rest could almost be considered compilations - by greater standards as the US albums since they were released on the same market. Thoughts? CentraCross (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Democraticmacguitarist, I don't know why you keep talking about people looking in the templates. If every template is on every page, people can find everything, it doesn't matter where we put items. And one of your previous arguments was that keeping the EPs in the album template was user-friendly. I think having third level templates is the most user-unfriendly thing we could have, plus having the singles template on Paul is dead, for example, is completely unnecessary. I think, and I know others agree with me, that EPs are different to albums so I don't care which album template you stick them, since I'll be equally unhappy with either. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The Beatles discography has EPs as separate to albums. It also lists The Early Beatles and The Beatles Story as compilations. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think 3rd-levelers are a good solution. Having to open and close subtemplates is more tiring than having an Organized Full Template. We should put effort into organizing and cleaning up instead of splitting. CentraCross (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone came onto Template talk:The Beatles and said that the only reason that that template is using third-level collapsable setting is because there are so many articles on the template that are of little relevance, and they are only there because, and I quote roughly, "These obsessive compulsive Beatles fans think that they are somehow indispensable information." Take my word for it, he sounded like a nut when I first read his comment. But, he did have a point: there are some irrelevant articles on that template. So, I agreed that I would help him clean up the template. He hasn't come back since, so I can't really do that much now. If you'd like to join and help me, that would be great. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It would look something like this. CentraCross (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that's necessary. The template is perfectly fine with all of the EPs in it.
What do you think about Sessions? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Remove It. We shouldn't waste space on Unreleased albums. It is in compilations, that's enough.
The thing about the EPs is that it is a little messy, and I don't think they are worth it since they are quite irrelevant to their catalog (except LTS and MMT). CentraCross (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that they might be irrelevant, but I'm sure there are some people out there that would say otherwise. There have already been numerous comments on the talk page to The Beatles template where people are shouting about the fact that not all the EPs were on the template; the reason given for leaving them out was because of length (because, at that time, the template was hideously long). Now that we have a separate template for the album discography, we can include those EPs and still have the template at a perfectly sane length. If we remove them again, then we'll probably be having some people coming back to shout on the talk page on how they aren't there. That said, I think they should stay because there are going to be people looking for them there; and if we remove them and put a link to the discography page, which would mean another round of click-and-scrool for the users, which, believe it or not, can be really tedious. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
How about simply adding a "space boundary" (I don't think it has a proper name) to the EP section - moving the text a bit from the sections' top and bottom edges. I did this on The Rolling Stones template and it had quite an impressive effect. I tried to do it here, but it didn't work - probably for some complicated tecnical reason. CentraCross (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured it out. Also, I don't suppose it's allowed to replace the " · " sign with a "  ·  " (extra Spaces), just to keep the section a bit more "airy"? CentraCross (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I tried what you suggested and I found it kind of an eyesore. I'm not really sure what you mean by "airy". Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. However, I saw you undid the edit made by Pointlessness, (which of course was right, and just like I knew you would). I saw the edit earlier, but i didn't undo it - cause even though the edit itself was stupid and totally unmotivated - I think he has a point.
I know I came up with it, but I don't actually think the "sub-Heading" (Albums in the core catalogue...) is very good, since the EPs came along. It is a bit annoying sentence. I don't know if there's a better solution, but I just thought it was worth putting on our "noticeboard" CentraCross (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't really want the original-material EPs to be bolded anyway, but since at the time there was no other solution, I just let it happen. Now I see that there is really no point in denoting those EPs in the first place. I think we should do what 'Pointlessness' did again. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There is no reason to bold them. McLerristarr / Mclay1 09:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


This is a discussion continued from Template talk:The Beatles#Template group concerning the inclusion of non-new material EPs. Discuss below. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think EPs are albums, so they shouldn't be in this template at all. The EPs should have their own template and on that we can say the EPs with non-album material are bolded. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there are enough EPs to really have their own template. Maybe if we just put an asterisk by the new material EPs. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
There's 16 EP articles at the moment, there may be more than can be created in the near future. And yes, I realise the hypocrisy of what I said, what I mean is that having albums and compilations seems a bit much. General overview, albums, singles and EPs seems to cover everything. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
EPs are technically albums: extended play albums; they should be kept in this template. As for the compilations, the main reason I don't want to kill that template is because it is already in hundreds of articles, the majority of which were planted by me. So if we were to kill the template, you'll have to promise me that we'll remove all traces of it from The Beatles' articles. 11:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think EPs are albums because "albums" didn't really exist in The Beatles' days. They has LPs, EPs and SPs. It's only since the rise of CDs that albums has replaced LP. When new bands start out, they usually release an EP first. It's not an album but neither is it a single. In fact, I think EPs actually charted on the singles charts originally. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I still REALLY don't want the EPs in a separate template. It would be smaller than the compilations template, much smaller. The way it looks in the album template is just fine. No extra template necessary. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Smaller is better. It would only appear on the EP pages, so you wouldn't need this giant template with all their albums if browsers were only interested in the EPs. It would also make this template smaller. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen the rest of Template talk:The Beatles#Template group? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
This template group has been placed in hundreds of articles, the majority of which were placed by yours truly. It is to be placed in all articles pertaining to The Beatles. The same thing has happened with The Rolling Stones. If we were to kill the compilations template, then we'd have to go back to all of those articles and delete the traces of it. And also, if we were to create a separate template for the EPs, 1) It would be MUCH MUCH shorter than the current compilations template, and 2) It would be the first of its kind, and a rather weak one at that. Everyone except you would say an EP is considered an album, a shorter playing album than an LP, and they are put on CDs as well; heck, even singles are on CDs. Creating an EP template would be unnecessary and, let's face it, stupid. I'm willing to work with you to sort out the compilations template, but the EPs need to stay where they belong: with the rest of the albums. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm never going to agree with you. An EP is NOT an album, but if you want to veto it, fine. Although it is certainly not a "stupid" proposal. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that you are likely to be the only one who says an EP is not an album. To provide user friendliness, do not make a separate template for extended play albums. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Your arguments do not even make sense. What difference does the size of the template matter? Extended play agrees with me that an EP is not an album, it is shorter than an album. That's why when a band releases a new EP they say "We have a new EP" not "We have a new album" because the latter would be a lie. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Here. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I Agree on that the EP's should be included, but not on the asterisk marking - it's not clear enough. Why not do the same as with Studio Albums and bolden them? CentraCross (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is not part of the current core catalogue, which is currently bolded on the template, and we do not want to confuse the two. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what the Rolling Stones template looks like. If the Rolling Stones template jumped off a bridge, would you? There's no reason for this debate to turn nasty, you started it remember. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I came here with the same idea, that the two EPs containing original song material (Long Tall Sally, Magical Mystery Tour) should be marked with an asterisk; further, the 'footnote' for this should be in the left column, within the heading "Extended plays", under that title (there's a good bit of room there), saying something like "*contains original song material". Let me lobby for this in the strongest possible outsider terms. BTW I am in full agreement that EPs are not albums (but also it is thoroughly UNtrue that " 'albums' didn't really exist in the Beatles' days" -- LPs were albums!), but EPs are titled (mini-)collections, like albums, and should nevertheless remain part of this template -- don't get hung up on semantics! (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


I don't know if this is really worth doing, but perhaps it would be good to include a message somewhere on the template (maybe at the end of the compilations list) and say something like "for further information see..." and then either link to the compilation template or the compilations section in the Beatles discography. This way, people can avoid confusion (they might of thought that these were the band's only compilations) -- (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me reference you to The Beatles template. This template contains its own information as well as the other templates relating to The Beatles, including this template and the compilations template. The templates are automatically collapsed, so a user will see at a glimpse that there is a separate template for compilations and realize that, under the assumption that a template will not contain only five articles, there are so many compilations that they deserved its own template. When someone uncollapses this template and sees only five articles under the Compilations section, they will already know there is another template for all of the compilations. This super-template, if you will, appears in every article related to The Beatles, so I find it unnecessary to put an explanation in this lone template. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to say something here because in viewing the "Beatles Album Discography" template, it was very confusing that it contains sections "Compilations", "Remixes" and "Box Sets", totaling 22 entities, yet omits such significant items as A Collection of Beatles Oldies, 1962–1966, 1967–1970, 20 Greatest Hits, and 1, as well as others. I implore you (read: YOU MUST OBEY!) to address this confusing situation as follows: In this template, create sub-headings for "Compilations", to wit: "Hits", containing the entries from that section of the Compilations Template (which, itself, would benefit from including the Dutch Beatles Greatest, and the German The Beatles Beat; that is, when they GET ARTICLES ABOUT THEM!), and likewise "Themes", plus put "Remixes" as a third sub, and lastly, "Other", with the entries currently in the "Compilations" section of this template, with the two Rarities added to it. (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)