Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

Music-related question

I was wondering if any of you know of any online resources that are free, and that give information on chart positions from at least the 1960s on a per-week basis, particularly for the UK, but also for other countries. --Mal 18:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Woooo! Something that I can contribute to (damn my head is spinning from reading all of this!)

The BBC may well be a good source, since it is a public broadcasting service which has had a weekly singles rundown since before the formation of Radio 1. It has certainly been the "official" reference since that date. It may take some researching of the archives. I also know the Melody Maker singles charts have been a source in some publications, but I don't know if it is freely available.LessHeard vanU 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Articles

Does anyone know if the revision ID is stored anywhere of the Beatles' main article as it stood when it received FA status? I'd rather not trawl through months and years of vandal edits to find it, but I'd like to get a diff to see how the article stands compared with when it was 'promoted'. --kingboyk 19:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ping! Anyone? --kingboyk 00:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the easiest way to do it is to find out when it was a featured article (likely listed in one of the boxes on its talk page) and then scroll through the history to find that date. For example, for The Beatles, the feature date was June 18, 2004. The first edit on that date was here and the last edit on that date was here. (These might not be according to UTC, but to UTC-4 or UTC-5.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gordon. Gosh, just look at that! I'm tempted to revert back to the 2004 edition! :-) There's one glaring ommission though: no footnotes. In all seriousness, the article has changed a great deal since then - partly for the better, partly for the worse. I think this is evidence enough that featured article status should be annually renewable! --kingboyk 04:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In various talkings somewhere or another (I have to get better at not starting stuff on people's talk pages that really belongs here!), the idea of a newsletter has been mooted. I think it's a good idea. I happened to be at Phaedriel's talk page and saw this: User_talk:Phaedriel#Military_history_WikiProject_Newsletter.2C_Issue_I... nice. Food for thought! Something to ponder, it was delivered via subst. (the original is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Newsletter March 2006) Is that how we want to do things? Note also, they decided to have "coordinators". We've informally been operating that way but it's because it seems like Steve and I do most of the talking/planning... (NOT because we're trying to hog the fun!_ I for one would love to hear more voices. On the other hand I'm not opposed to formalising things a bit as long as I get to be "project toolsmith" in addition to whatever else makes sense. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this post at the time. We could a) write the newsletter in a sandbox somewhere, deliver it with subst and zap the page afterwards; or b) store the newsletter for posterity in a subpage and deliver by subst or inclusion. I don't like the idea of coordinators. Although it seems that by defacto I am one, I'd rather it remain on an informal basis. The current state of affairs is not at all how I want it to be, and I don't want to formalise it :-) We need more people to take part in discussions, and more "hands on deck". I fear that if either of us were to be hit by a bus tommorow (preferably a red AEC Routemaster of course :)) the Project would wither and die. Bottom line then: we assuredly do need to promote the project and encourage more involvement, but unless others insist on it I'd rather not be formally labelled as anything other than a project member and the fool who suggested it in the first place! --kingboyk 11:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Song Stubs

Can I just confirm that we are stubbing solo Beatles songs with {{beatles-song-stub}}. I thought we'd agreed that somewhere, although looking through the various talk pages I think it might have been something that didn't get much discussion because the answer was "of course we are"!

I think it would make an awful lot of sense to do it that way because a) it keeps all or most of the Project's song stubs in one place b) many of the other song stub cats are bursting to the seams.

I edited the category with the change (27 March 2006 Kingboyk (Change scope to include solo works)) but I've discovered that's there been some continuing confusion on the matter, so if I get one or two yays or nays I'll "toughen up" the wording on the template itself. Those which have already been changed could possibly be "rolled back" or we can fix em during the classification process so it's no big deal :-) --kingboyk 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What are the pros/cons? I confess to having no strong opinion either way but would want consistency, so would be happy with either outcome, if we then were to schedule everything for fixing. Apropos of that (and of finding past decisions) we may want to start capturing these things somewhere organised, and updating our list of things to look for/fix in an article when it gets a visit? ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Only con I can think of is that the category gets larger. We could create some more stub templates (and that might be preferable) but I wouldn't want to make Gruntness mad :-)

Yes indeed on the "things to look for when an article gets a visit", I'm gonna add a reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#How_to_grade as soon as this issue in resolved. In the meantime I've just rewritten the intro to that article with a link from the intro to that list of "instructions". --kingboyk 22:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes a difference to me whether to include the solo songs or not, especially because there's a finite list of Beatles (group) songs and because it's not a full list of Beatles songs, only songs that have short articles. So yeah, I supposed we can include solo songs. Just make sure to change the contents of the template so that it conveys as such. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. We categorise the solo songs seperately and will continue to do so; this is solely about stub categorising. You make a good point. --kingboyk 11:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

<-- I've reworded the template. Please feel free to tweak the wording as whilst it gets the desired message across it does it in a rather verbose fashion. --kingboyk 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Souvenir of Their Visit to America makes DYK!

It happened again! The April 3 DYK mentioned that Souvenir of Their Visit to America was The Beatles first EP released in America, but did not chart! Steelbeard1 08:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WELL done! I added the previous one to the portal... Portal:The Beatles/Did you know want to add this one? I will if you don't get a chance.++Lar: t/c 01:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

re; your kind invitation to join The Beatles Project.

I am very tempted. I am also very frightened because I went and had a look at the talk pages re the project and realised that nearly all the tech speak was unfamiliar to me. I would be pleased to be able to help in editing text in pre-existing sections and adding suggestions and the like to talk pages (which is a lot of what I tend to do anyway). I'm just not sure if that deserves a plaque or whatever that box is called.

I would comment that I only started editing about the same time as you started the Beatles project, and much of the reason I was looking in the piece was because I've had a bit of a "block" on the article I had been working on; Steven Severin. I really want to finish that before I do anything else. If I find I can contribute to The Beatles in the future I will.

In any event, it really was an honour and a pleasure to be asked.LessHeard vanU 21:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's enough to pop your name on the list and optionally display the userbox, of course! Don't worry about the gobbledegook, everything is optional here and if you all want to do is edit articles and tweak things here and there that's more than enough and ultimately it's what we're actually here for! :) --kingboyk 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite. That Steve and I geek out about stuff is just our way of having fun. ANYONE's contributions are valid and useful, even if it's just prose put in somewhere on a talk page with a comment "can someone else work that in for me?" it's still helpful. Get involved however you feel comfy with, it's all good. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, alright - I'm in. Point me toward the sign up spot.LessHeard vanU 20:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Participants - Bank account details not needed. --kingboyk 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Lennon-McCartney songs not performed by The Beatles

I just happened across a version It's For You by Cilla Black where John says that they wrote the song specifically for her. What are the plans for handling songs written by Lennon-McCartney, but not recorded by The Beatles (or those that were recorded as demos only)? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We haven't decided yet, but if it wasn't a big hit or important in some way it probably wouldn't get its own article. (And it was, it might! :-)). We'd mention it in Cilla's article or perhaps we'll have an article on "Other L/M" songs. All undecided at this stage until we've assessed our current songs articles. --kingboyk 13:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

How about listing the songs written by Lennon/McCartney for other artists in a new section within the Lennon-McCartney article? --kingboyk 14:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I recall a various artists album called "The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away". You can Google that and see a good selection of songs. Steelbeard1 14:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the album in question at [1] Steelbeard1 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice sleeve, songs by the original artists, a piece of history - and did not chart! Oh well. You know if we mention the album we might just be able to get away with using that cover art in the Lennon-McCartney article? --kingboyk 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Personnel

I've noticed that none of the The Beatles album pages have personnel. Is there any particular reason for this? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

More pointedly, is there any reason why the album articles should list personnel? The Beatles retained the same lineup for their entire EMI recording career, and that info is one click away in The Beatles. To be honest, I never list personnel for any band which had a static lineup. It's only necessary imho for bands where the lineup has changed and the reader needs to be told who was on that particular album. --kingboyk 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not about the lineup. Personnel pages are for those who played on the album and what they played, and I believe it would be nice to know what was played on the album and who played it. Led Zeppelin and ZZ Top both have had static lineups and their albums have personnel sections. What makes The Beatles so special? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 02:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The best advice I can give is be bold and change one or two album articles and come back and tell us which ones so we can have a look. Maybe you're entirely right and we're wrong :-) I would say though that the standard lineup played on the vast majority of tracks and where an extra musician was brought in or an orchestra it ought already to mention that in the article text. --kingboyk 00:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What I think might be interesting is to discuss who OTHER than musicians was involved, if it's significant... engineers and that sort of thing. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's another point. Many personnel sections include engineers and producers. But the point, again, isn't just to list the lineup. Not everyone might know whether Paul played bass only on one album or bass and guitar on another. And this information may be interesting and helpful. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Following Kingboyk's advice, I added it to Introducing... The Beatles and modeled it after Autobiography, arguably the best article with a personnel section. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Sold! --kingboyk 14:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

(The) Blue Album

I happened across The Blue Album, which was a disambiguation page. However, since the only album listed there that actually had that name (not just a nickname) was Blue Album (Orbital), I moved it to Blue Album. I then cleaned it up a bit and added Valensia's album to the list. (She has an album named The Blue Album, but it isn't linked from her article and I'm not sure how popular/famous she actuallly is.) Anyone think we should take this disambig page under our wing? (Remember, the Beatles had a Blue Album.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Orbital example justifies going against convention (The Black Album, incoming links, standard English usage), not least because the Orbital album has it's own article and this is just a dab page. Furthermore even Orbital's LP is referred to as "The Blue Album" when context necessitates (see e.g. [2]). With regards to your question, though, I'd say no, we don't want to be managing dab pages unless all or the vast majority of entries are Beatles related (Let It Be (disambiguation)). There isn't much to manage anyway. Just pop it onto your watchlist would be my advice :) --kingboyk 22:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that Orbital's album should ever be referred to as The Blue Album. It's fairly clear that the name of the album is Blue Album, as seen on its cover here on Wikipedia (see the spine). Also, what incoming links are you referring to? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that's the name (although coincidentally it is AFAIK the only Orbital album I don't have!) The point is that all the other pages are "The Colour Album"; that Orbital's album is called Blue Album is totally irrelevant. It's not an Orbital article, it's a dab page. If you disagree take it to Talk:The Blue Album as this isn't the proper place. --kingboyk 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC) If you think it should never be called "The Blue Album" you might wanna fix Blue Album (Orbital), heh :). The dab page is fine as you've left it now imho. --kingboyk 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Julian Lennon

Today happens to be Julian Lennon's birthday, so I headed over to his article. I was surprised to find out that it's not under our project. Now, the question is, should it (and other Beatles children's articles) be? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's probably not been tagged yet (it's in the John Lennon category I trust?) Just chuck a {{TheBeatlesArticle}} onto the talk page. Same goes for any article which should be in the project but doesn't appear to be yet. --kingboyk 00:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Should this be done for Mike McGear (Macca's bro, just in case the link wasn't known) and/or The Scaffold (who are also Parlophone artists)?LessHeard vanU 12:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your call mate. I would think "probably" for McGear, and "possibly/possibly not" for The Scaffold :) --kingboyk 12:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have done it for Mike McGear. As The Scaffold will presumably be on the Parlophone label listing, which will have one in its own right, I have decided not to.LessHeard vanU 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Parlophone categories won't be managed by our Project, however. Some of the articles within the categories will be, of course, but not the categories themselves. Apple is different because it was owned and operated by the Beatles (and initially with their own new business "vision") and a much smaller operation. --kingboyk 20:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is suitable to have a box for The Scaffold (or is that the Scaffold...? Ho ho!) since the link is Paul McCartneys brother, which is already mentioned in the text. Anyone that interested would click on the link(s) and find their way "here" anyway.LessHeard vanU 12:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wonderwall (film)

In scope or out? I can see cases either way. One way of questioning it is this: should everything any Beatle touched be included? This movie featured music by George and the set design was by The Fool (collective) which are instrumental in (Apple etc.) history... Thoughts? I did not tag it because I'm not sure (although leaning toward in rather strongly). A general principle on how wide to cast the net might be helpful. (I just added the tag to Kinfauns as it was a house of George's)++Lar: t/c 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest splitting out the soundtrack material into a separate article. The soundtrack falls within our scope; the movie itself does not. Johnleemk | Talk 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's already seperate. --kingboyk 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Marginal indeed Lar, but I think given that the film's main claim to fame these days is probably George's soundtrack, we should include it. The article doesn't mention which studio funded the movie? (If it were Apple Films that would swing it to a definite 'keep'). --kingboyk 18:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

IMDB seems mute on which studio funded it: [3]. I put the article into the category:George Harrison but did NOT end up adding the project box to talk, because I do agree it's marginal. I came down on the "include" side of the line but if I was sure, I wouldn't have asked. I won't be sussed at all if everyone else says no... As I say, maybe trying to write the criteria down may be a good thing to help crystallise thinking? ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mute? Take it back. IMDB says: Production Companies * Alan Clore Films (http://imdb.com/company/co0065041/) * Compton Films (http://imdb.com/company/co0103330/) . Presumably neither is Apple. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of "In scope or out?", what about John Lennon Park? Grutness...wha? 13:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lean toward "out" as there surely are a lot of things named after John Lennon? I suspect that every town named Lincoln is not in the Abraham Lincoln category (trivia note, all 50 US states have at least one)... I'm swayable though. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how many there are that have or could justify articles? If there was say 10 or more, a new category would be best. In the meantime I have no objection to articles like John Lennon Park being put into Category:John Lennon with the proviso that we might take them out again when we get round to stocktaking :) --kingboyk 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thought. Given that John Lennon Park is a sub-stub, merging any found into article such as Places named after John Lennon would be a possibility. --kingboyk 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Parlophone

Just a heads up to those whom it may concern, I've created the above category and have started populating it with articles and subcategories. The category will be outside project scope of course but many of our articles belong in subcategories of it. --kingboyk 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the Parlophone artists category to as many Parlophone artists as I can think of. Steelbeard1 13:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed, you scoundrel! Gives me more work to do populating Category:Parlophone singles! (I am , of course, joking :-) - thanks for doing that.) --kingboyk 02:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of your new additions don't have many blue linked articles. There's one who does, of course, and that's a fella by the name of James Paul McCartney. How could I have forgotten him?! :-) --kingboyk 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Shortcuts

Good work, I think, I'm just concerned that we may be hogging a lot of the WP:* namespace with such short shortcuts... (always a danger with TLAs ) Since they weren't in use "we got here first", I guess... ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, first come first served it would seem. Couldn't find any policy saying not to. --kingboyk 21:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Is there a consensus with dealing with multiple infoboxes? For example, the Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da article has both the album infobox and the singles infobox. I think having both looks a bit ugly, so I think we should figure out a way to combine both boxes, or just include the more important one. Estrose 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That one is weird. It actually appears to have a "subst:'d" version of the album box although I can't be quite sure. If so, I'm not sure why it was subst'd in (didn't check the talk page though). I think a song should have only song/single (whichever is more appropriate) and not album... So I dunno about consensus but barring a good reason to keep the album (or its subst'ed descendant), I'd yank it. Those interested in the album can easily visit that article. ++Lar: t/c 13:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed this discussion earlier on and it got me thinking. You might be interested in a (rather bold) suggestion I've made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Infoboxes, which I'm hoping might resolve such infobox issues. Flower party? 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy. It's a (probably amateurish) first draft, so please get stuck in! --kingboyk 19:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Beatles song stubs

I've proposed the above for renaming to Category:The Beatles song stubs in line with the other Beatles categories. The debate is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_13#Category:Beatles_song_stubs_to_Category:The_Beatles_song_stubs. --kingboyk 01:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... this was never proposed at WP:SFD, which is where stub categories deletions and renamings should be proposed! In future please remember that all stub categories and templates go through SFD (as it says at the top of WP:CFD!). Grutness...wha? 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Baroque Beatles Book

During an AWB run I found the above new article. A possible companion for the Beatle Barkers in a Beatles parodies (and possibly "miscellaneous") category? --kingboyk 02:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another new one in a similar vein (none of these are logged yet) - The Buggs. --kingboyk 02:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Another new article

also not logged, because I've never heard of em! The Dissenters. --kingboyk 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Article count

All Beatles-related articles I know about (i.e. those in the categories, plus one or two strays, minus a few I considered outside project scope) are now tagged with {{TheBeatlesArticle}} and can be found in Category:WikiProject The Beatles articles. Article count (main space only): 546. Of those there are a large number of sub-stubs and very poor articles on songs. We have a long and winding road ahead of us I fear. --kingboyk 18:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Zappa covers

Great stuff; only thing I would add is Zappa's mutation of Norwegian Wood, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds and Strawberry Fields Forever on his 1988 tour to ridicule the televangelist Jimmy Swaggart, who'd just been caught "doing something pornographic" with a prostitute. Evidence here - http://lukpac.org/~handmade/patio/bootlegs/boxes.html#broadwaythehardwayinusa 195.58.94.172 22:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)rancidfish [nli]

Christmas Album, Wide Prairie

Well, I added most the info I could find and thought was appropriate to The Beatles' Christmas Album, if anybody has any more ideas on what to include I'd appreciate the input.

And I also added a lot of info to the article on Linda's Wide Prairie album, with a tracklist and info on each track. Perhaps I added too much info, I'd like input on that as well. Thanks. Danthemankhan 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I love what you've done with the Christmas article. As for Linda's album, it's absolutely not excessive. In fact, it would be better if you covered the songs in normal prose within a section of the article. A lot of album articles don't go into any detail about the songs within - or the more fancruftier projects split out horrible little stub articles on each song. The perfect album article (I think) will tell the reader about each song. Remember, many readers won't have heard the LP - I haven't for a kickoff. --kingboyk 07:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians

Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians has tried to claim our Project as managed by them. I've reverted stating that we'd prefer to be listed as an independent top-level project (or until they reword their Project page). I think other Project members will agree with me on this?

Rationale: It would have been nice if somebody had come over to our WikiProject and explained what was happening, rather than just changing our category membership and commandeering our Project as "maintained by WikiProject Musicians". We have a well-ordered infrastructure - which we put in place ourselves; we don't need an extra layer of bureacracy; and the Beatles are such a large part of Wikipedia (500+ articles) that it really needs a dedicated team to manage. --kingboyk 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless they can point to where they have contributed through their "management" (or by a member of their membership as a matter of policy) I think your response is entirely appropriate.LessHeard vanU 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We should stay top level. If things change in future, revisit. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, you Beatle people are territorial! Presumably you're referring to this edit? The musicians project had nothing to do with that; it was rather part of Silence's work cleaning up Category:WikiProjects. I've recategorised you as a Music WikiProject. The musicians project, meanwhile, clearly needs some attention, if anyone's interested? Flower party☀ 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the value add in being a subproject of a project barely off the ground, and I like the scope of this project... big enough to be important and not so big as to be overwhelming. The Beatles are more than just music, you know. A top level project is where it belongs. Further, I don't think coming in and changing categorization without talking about it first is quite the way to achieve consensus, and I don't think accusing anyone of being "territorial" is a useful way to start a discussion. I've reverted the category change. Make the case that it should be categorised the way you say before changing it back, if you would be so kind. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was joking about the territorial thing, sorry if that didn't come across. I guess I need to use more of these :P things, or something. And just to clarify, I didn't quite change it back: it had been under Category:WikiProject Musicians, I put it under Category:Music WikiProjects (which also includes well-established projects like WP:ALBUM) - see further reasoning at Category talk:WikiProject The Beatles. Flower party☀ 00:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is territorial to an extent, but with reason (as Lar pointed out). My main worry when I saw it was that they will come along now with a set of guidelines and procedures, and potentially undo the structural and "policy" work we've already done. That's the biggie. I was also a bit pissed off that they seemed to be taking credit for the Project (the first of its kind I believe, and one which Lar and I and others have put an enormous amount of time into). Finally, I thought well that means the Project will be hidden away in a subcategory. I think this Project is important enough to not be hidden away... and we really need some new members so any advertising is good :) OK stream of consciousness over let's go check out the category talk... --kingboyk 04:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter (2)

It's way past time, we should ge our first newsletter out folks. We need to tell the less active members where we're at and what's happening. The most important part of this is to try and drum up some more participation as I think the Project is floundering now the initial "new Project euphoria" is over. We can create it here and then subst it onto user talk pages. There's plenty of examples knocking about to pilfer formatting ideas from :) --kingboyk 04:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. It seems to me that there's so much information scattered around the various subpages that it could use a newsletter for those of us not "in the know". Danthemankhan 15:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody put a skeleton in place, you know just some nice formatting? I'm happy to then start adding some content. Good idea Danthemankhan... and while you're here mate, perhaps you'd look at a few of the threads above... I seem to have been talking to myself lately :) --kingboyk 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do you want one ? Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue_001 ?? I should be doing other things but am on a heavy work avoidance string now, I'll set up a skelly for you if that suits. (001 gives us room for 999 newsletters before alpha is messed up... is that going to be enough? :) ) ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Skelly set up. if you don't like it, change it. It's a straight crib from WP:MILHIST I took the liberty as listing us as co editors but feel free to delete me I don't mind. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was after. Cheers! --kingboyk 06:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I presume that this is the talk page regarding the newsletter per the message in Mytalk? I have never done a newsletter before, so I am not certain what is required. I will gladly edit/spell check and stuff other peoples contributions. It seems all the catagorising, stubbing and other technical aspects have been done by other editors.LessHeard vanU 20:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion: Just start editing that page I set up: Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue_001 and when everyone that's involved in creating content is happy, we'll spam all the project member talk pages with it via AWB or whatever... one thing we ought to mention IN the newsletter is the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach where people can say "don't do that again" or "just leave me a link"... The newsletter's talk is where I'd talk about what should be in (key questions, what do we want to talk about? what we've done so far? stuff coming up? questions or concerns or issues?) or not in. But those are my ideas. This is Kingboyk's idea so he may have bigger/better/faster/cheaper/smaller ideas. I think it's great you're willing to smith it though! ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Right on man. Let's get stuck in. I'm still busy with KLF articles but I can chip in a few things today and perhaps we can get it out tommorow or Monday. --kingboyk 06:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For chat about newsletter 1, head this way >>> (or better still, don't chat just edit :) )

Newsletter 1 is gone and done. it has been delivered and should not be modified any more, although feel free to talk about it, likes, dislikes, etc... For chat about newsletter 2, head this way >>> ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Navbox

Do we want one of these: Template:WPMILHIST Navigation ? It would contain all or most of what is found here, presumably: [4] Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, yes please! As Dan said above, we do have a lot of pages scattered about. A nav bar like that would be cool. --kingboyk 06:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems good. How many articles are there in WPMILHIST, do you know? If that navbar holds links to all articles then we would have to look at grouping subjects since our article count is rather high - if (as I suspect) it just points to the major topics then it will probably serve us well.LessHeard vanU 20:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That navbox is for project nav not article.. it has all the pages that are important to the project itself in it (and none of the articles)... there are 5000+ articles covered by that project I think. maybe 50000 I can't recall. but loads. Wayyy too many for a nav box. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Good-oh, then it seems perfect for us (if some kind soul with knowledge of this tech stuff, and an idea where all the project pages are, were to tackle it...) How about the todo list for the next newsletter? I know you and Kingboyk already have a list as long as the cliche!LessHeard vanU 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll bang one out (later tonite if I get a chance) with my best guess as to the needful links, no biggie (and others can add whatever I forget). The work-part is to go around to all the project pages and add it to the pages themselves. (hmm... a job for AWB maybe) ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK... give it a boo {{WP:BEATLES Navigation}} (it's on this page already and on the main project page. If that's basically good, anyone that wants to should hang it on every page that it lists off. Also what about the content? Did I get the right set of things included? Comments welcomed (here or in ITS talk page Template talk:WP:BEATLES Navigation

Categories: Wikipedia talk archives