Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Has anyone...
Has anyone asked Taxman, who is currently undergoing an RfB, if he named himself after this song? ;-) NoSeptember talk 15:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, not that I can think of, and neither did you! But I'm not the most creative person, so it was at least partly inspired by that song, and actually having to admit that I find something geekily entertaining about digging into parts of the IRS code, regs, and letter rulings. Funny enough I only just saw this from clicking on what links here from the nom. - Taxman Talk 03:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
John Eastman
I was about to speedy-delete John Eastman, but saw the project tempate. Can anyone evidence of the notability of this person? The entire text of the article is:
- John Eastman was the son of Lee Eastman.
And that isn't enough. -Will Beback 21:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- What about Paul McCartney's brother-in-law from his marriage to his first wife Linda? He was also an adviser who helped Paul and Linda develop MPL Communications. Steelbeard1 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Being a brother-in-law to someone notable doesn't make one notable. By following the links to the article I find that he managed a few bands, and was an entertainment lawyer. If all of that info is verifiable and add to the article then it might be worth keeping. -Will Beback 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing it here. His article was until very recently a redirect, which I've now restored. I don't believe he justifies an article on his own. --kingboyk 07:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to resolve it. I came across it checking a link of another (even less notable) person of the same name. Also, there's still a "Lee Eastman" article. Frankly, Lee & John Eastman is not a good article title, unless that was the name of a partnership. They need to be merged and I suggest we simply redirect the John Eastman links to Lee Eastman, and mention in that article that his son, born___ (or whatever biographical details), was also in the business. There may be other "John Eastmans", so we may eventually appropriate the title for a disambiguation page, etc. But at the moment this "John Eastman" appears the most noteworthy so he can have the redirect. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- That (the presence of a Lee Eastman article) will be because the same editor undid that redirect too :) If you want to move them around go for it. I chose the Lee & John name to try and resist the attempts for these guys to have seperate articles, but I accept it's unconventional... What I don't know is what name they practiced law under, which might be a suitable article name perhaps? --kingboyk 08:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- If the article were about the practice, then it should be under the partnership's name. For example, "Apple Corps". But if it's 95% a bio of Lee Eastman, then we should just call it "Lee Eastman". The objection to Lee & John is rooted in the idea that no one would naturally type that into a search box, or link to it from an article. That's the heart of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I know nothing about the arcana of Beatles management, so I'm just giving you general principles. -Will Beback 08:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wasn't John Eastman a photographer? And didn't he provide many sources (books and such) with otherwise unavailable photographs of Paul? I'm not sure if that makes him especially notable, but I wouldn't say he was necessarily unnotable, either. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- No idea. If something like that comes up, the redirect can be reversed. In the meantime, we'll show we're a WikiProject that means business by merging flaky articles like that - agree? :) --kingboyk 20:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Fine by me. I was just popping in to add a factoid that I seem to remember. Makes no difference to me, either way. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- No idea. If something like that comes up, the redirect can be reversed. In the meantime, we'll show we're a WikiProject that means business by merging flaky articles like that - agree? :) --kingboyk 20:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wasn't John Eastman a photographer? And didn't he provide many sources (books and such) with otherwise unavailable photographs of Paul? I'm not sure if that makes him especially notable, but I wouldn't say he was necessarily unnotable, either. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- If the article were about the practice, then it should be under the partnership's name. For example, "Apple Corps". But if it's 95% a bio of Lee Eastman, then we should just call it "Lee Eastman". The objection to Lee & John is rooted in the idea that no one would naturally type that into a search box, or link to it from an article. That's the heart of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I know nothing about the arcana of Beatles management, so I'm just giving you general principles. -Will Beback 08:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- That (the presence of a Lee Eastman article) will be because the same editor undid that redirect too :) If you want to move them around go for it. I chose the Lee & John name to try and resist the attempts for these guys to have seperate articles, but I accept it's unconventional... What I don't know is what name they practiced law under, which might be a suitable article name perhaps? --kingboyk 08:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Glad to resolve it. I came across it checking a link of another (even less notable) person of the same name. Also, there's still a "Lee Eastman" article. Frankly, Lee & John Eastman is not a good article title, unless that was the name of a partnership. They need to be merged and I suggest we simply redirect the John Eastman links to Lee Eastman, and mention in that article that his son, born___ (or whatever biographical details), was also in the business. There may be other "John Eastmans", so we may eventually appropriate the title for a disambiguation page, etc. But at the moment this "John Eastman" appears the most noteworthy so he can have the redirect. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing it here. His article was until very recently a redirect, which I've now restored. I don't believe he justifies an article on his own. --kingboyk 07:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Being a brother-in-law to someone notable doesn't make one notable. By following the links to the article I find that he managed a few bands, and was an entertainment lawyer. If all of that info is verifiable and add to the article then it might be worth keeping. -Will Beback 22:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd support stuffing the whole lot of them into Linda's article, perhaps as sections, and leave the dab pages to point to the sections where there are dab pages (Pity redirects can't point into sections too...) ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think they're a bit too notable for that. The Eastman saga was an important component in the driving of a wedge between Paul and the other Beatles. The Eastmans apparently also helped Macca build up MPL and his considerable wealth. I think they're best covered seperately from Linda. --kingboyk 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
The Portal
I think we ought to change the content of Portal:The Beatles every month or so? This time I'm gonna be bold and make an "executive decision" :) about the content, but maybe it should be a monthly job along with the newsletter?
Perhaps we should have a calendar on the project page? --kingboyk 16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- A monthly review seems a good thing to me. And no I'm not volunteering at the moment. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Apple Records artists
The red links for the minor artists on Apple remain, and I'm now wondering if they should be delinked. None of the artists were particularly notable except for their Apple connections as far as I know, and their failure to turn blue may suggest there is little to say about them. However, since they're listed in our newsletter and on our to-do list (albeit put there by me) I won't go through the what links here for them removing links until I've had some yays or nays from other editors. --kingboyk 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would have thought they were pretty low priority; an artist whose only claim to fame was being on Apple. If the artist had any (other) merit they should get an article eventually - so perhaps delist and look at it another day? Again, no point in urgency re delisting...LessHeard vanU 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- No harm in leaving them I say. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there is certainly no harm in leaving them. Maybe, in the future, there would be articles about them but currently they are non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you mean non-notable as in "would fail to meet notability at AFD" then we categorically shouldn't leave red links. Anyway... we seem to be split on this so I'll leave them in place for now. --kingboyk 10:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is something to put in the newsletter, asking for comments from amongst those who would be turning the links blue? Even a lack of interest in responding should indicate the likely status.LessHeard vanU 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you mean non-notable as in "would fail to meet notability at AFD" then we categorically shouldn't leave red links. Anyway... we seem to be split on this so I'll leave them in place for now. --kingboyk 10:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there is certainly no harm in leaving them. Maybe, in the future, there would be articles about them but currently they are non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- No harm in leaving them I say. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that if an artist is not notable, we should not keep a red link around, I'd also say that if an artist was released on Apple, which is a major label, they satisfy notability as suggested in WP:MUSIC, even if the release was just one single, without needing to pass any further tests. So to my view it comes down to this: will someone get around to doing articles sometime soon? If so, leave them because we'd just have to put them back, no? If not, does having redlinks hurt or help (that is, are they more of a detraction to things than an incentive to DO the articles?)... I think on balance they help, so I favour leaving them. The first major article I wrote from scratch (Poughkeepsie Bridge) was, after all, a redlink I found (it had 20 or so incoming links when I checked) so I think redlinks definitely motivate people to create articles. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I might think about an interrim solution of redirecting them to an "other Apple artists" article. The problem alas is that I know little (i.e. nothing) about these artists... --kingboyk 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- If people (us) with an eclectic enough taste to have some knowledge of The Beatles (I can just about remember their last recordings and breakup, and I guess I'm older than Lar and Kingboyk) but don't know much about the various Apple artists, I would suggest it may be some time before we find an editor who does - or is willing to find out. My point is - keep them by all means, but I feel it may be a long time before the majority turn blue.LessHeard vanU 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Dunno about Lar, but I'm a 70s child. (If you're talking about me to any attractive young women, please change that to "80s" :) ). --kingboyk 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever you say...son! *grin*LessHeard vanU 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (1959!)
- I was born in 1959 so I theoretically should remember more about The Beatles than I do. But I was rather an odd child and didn't really get into music till after they had broken up (I had a copy of the Apple "Turn Turn Turn" single before I had anything by our lads)... ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was born the night before Halloween, 1959 - you are likely a few months older than me - and I grew up accepting that The Beatles were as natural and commonplace as going to school. I don't particulary remember anything specific, just that it seemed "wrong" when they announced the split.LessHeard vanU 12:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was born in 1959 so I theoretically should remember more about The Beatles than I do. But I was rather an odd child and didn't really get into music till after they had broken up (I had a copy of the Apple "Turn Turn Turn" single before I had anything by our lads)... ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever you say...son! *grin*LessHeard vanU 20:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (1959!)
- Dunno about Lar, but I'm a 70s child. (If you're talking about me to any attractive young women, please change that to "80s" :) ). --kingboyk 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- If people (us) with an eclectic enough taste to have some knowledge of The Beatles (I can just about remember their last recordings and breakup, and I guess I'm older than Lar and Kingboyk) but don't know much about the various Apple artists, I would suggest it may be some time before we find an editor who does - or is willing to find out. My point is - keep them by all means, but I feel it may be a long time before the majority turn blue.LessHeard vanU 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Urgent alert
Apple Corps v. Apple Computer, a new article I forked out today, is on the front page. It's been vandalised twice in the last hour. I'll be watching closely of course, but please would all active Project members - especially admins - add it to their watchlists. It's likely to be a vandalism target whilst it remains on the front page and as a new article I'm probably the only person who has it on their watchlist. Cheers. --kingboyk 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- adding it... ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can't guarantee it will stay there, as after waiting nearly 24 hours without approval or objection I placed it there myself. Within a few hours of the story breaking there was 700+ stories on Google News, so I think it's big enough to survive on the front page for a couple of days but we'll see... --kingboyk 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've put it on my watchlist - which usually means I get to see what you guys did...LessHeard vanU 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Going crazy at the moment. I actually had to delete it twice and restore only clean revisions, as someone posted what they claim is an admin's home phone number. Oh well, all part of the "fun" of being an admin I guess :) --kingboyk 20:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Semi-protected, meaning new accounts and anons can't edit but anyone else can. If this inconveniences any of you or I forget to unprotect when it's off the front page, give me a buzz on my talk page. Isn't this exciting! :) --kingboyk 20:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- What an odd vandal.... How would you get an admin's phone number? Why would bother posting it in an article on Wikipedia? What does it have to do with the Apple vs. Apple legal troubles? That deleting thing... does retain all history but what revision(s) need(s) to be deleted? OK, I think that's enough questions for the time being.... (Oh, yeah, and it's about time this subject got its own article. I've been waiting for that....) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's a new trick. They post something dodgy in the edit summary, forcing an admin to have to delete the article and restore the "clean" revisions. For a new article it's an easy job, but if the article has thousands of edits well it's a dirty job and it can slow the servers. In this case, I actually left all vandalism and revert edits deleted - I'm not sure if I should have done that or not. In a way, vandalism should be publically viewable, on the other hand if I'm deleting and restoring anyway why restore crap? --kingboyk 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC) (PS I strongly suspect the phone number was fake, but I erred on the side of caution)
- What an odd vandal.... How would you get an admin's phone number? Why would bother posting it in an article on Wikipedia? What does it have to do with the Apple vs. Apple legal troubles? That deleting thing... does retain all history but what revision(s) need(s) to be deleted? OK, I think that's enough questions for the time being.... (Oh, yeah, and it's about time this subject got its own article. I've been waiting for that....) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've put it on my watchlist - which usually means I get to see what you guys did...LessHeard vanU 20:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can't guarantee it will stay there, as after waiting nearly 24 hours without approval or objection I placed it there myself. Within a few hours of the story breaking there was 700+ stories on Google News, so I think it's big enough to survive on the front page for a couple of days but we'll see... --kingboyk 18:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It had a very good run, and it's now off the front page. --kingboyk 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Transclusion of Policies, Logs, etc.
It seems that the transclusions of the Policies, Logs, etc., pages are causing problems with the navigation because the headings are not recategorized. In otherwords, the headings that are supposed to be subheadings on the inclusion page are actually regular headings because that's what they are on the standalone page. (Let me know if that was confusing....) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was, can you try again? But I'm not opposed to untranscluding as long as stuff can be found as needed. ++Lar: t/c 01:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the headers, as marked by a number of equals signs. In this case, they roughly translate to <h2> vs. </h3>. (Incidently, single equals signs can be used to create <h1>s, but there's little use for this, as the title of the page is one.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes that's true, but is it a problem? (There might be a way round it, using includeonly and noincludeonly but it would be cumbersome). --kingboyk 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm thinking maybe adding an extra <includeonly>=</includeonly> around each header. I agree that it's cumbersome, so maybe we should not transclude it, as Lar suggested? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think putting includeonly around headers is a good idea but maybe I am not following you, is this relating to category tables? we do have the problem there... other wise can you give a link? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- No Lar, section headers. Gordon, I think untransclude if pages are too large otherwise leave it/try the cumbersome fix. We have too many pages for the casual reader to look at them all, if the important ones are transcluded they're far more likely to see them! :) --kingboyk 09:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's true, but the distinction should be made about which pages the casual reader would actually want to read. There are plenty of pages that are only important if you're actually involved in the project. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of the "casual Project member" :) Which pages specifically to you object to? --kingboyk 19:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Taking a look at it, the whole page seems cluttered. There's plenty of stuff there that should be reorganized and/or moved to subpages. I've already taken the liberty of removing some of the transclusions. I'm gonna take a look at the rest of the page, too. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... I didn't realize that most of this stuff was included by default in the subst'd template. I'm going to hold off on any more changes to allow for more discussion. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've put it back for now. I'll have a look at trimming some later. --kingboyk 06:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... I didn't realize that most of this stuff was included by default in the subst'd template. I'm going to hold off on any more changes to allow for more discussion. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Taking a look at it, the whole page seems cluttered. There's plenty of stuff there that should be reorganized and/or moved to subpages. I've already taken the liberty of removing some of the transclusions. I'm gonna take a look at the rest of the page, too. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 22:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of the "casual Project member" :) Which pages specifically to you object to? --kingboyk 19:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's true, but the distinction should be made about which pages the casual reader would actually want to read. There are plenty of pages that are only important if you're actually involved in the project. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- No Lar, section headers. Gordon, I think untransclude if pages are too large otherwise leave it/try the cumbersome fix. We have too many pages for the casual reader to look at them all, if the important ones are transcluded they're far more likely to see them! :) --kingboyk 09:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think putting includeonly around headers is a good idea but maybe I am not following you, is this relating to category tables? we do have the problem there... other wise can you give a link? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm thinking maybe adding an extra <includeonly>=</includeonly> around each header. I agree that it's cumbersome, so maybe we should not transclude it, as Lar suggested? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Category "The Beatles" should not be in music group categories
Please see discussion and advice on categorisation at Category talk:The Beatles.
This is a nice idea...
shall we copy it? :) {{Queen WikiProject welcome}} --kingboyk 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Beatles Break-up
A contentious new article has popped up, Beatles Break-up. We need to decide what to do with it - keep, merge or propose deletion. Perhaps the editors who've been working on the History of the Beatles article would care to express their opinions? --kingboyk 22:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's a valid encyclopaedia article, IMO. (Although the breakup should use a lowercase "b".) It would make sense to have it as a subarticle of History of The Beatles. Johnleemk | Talk 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't see any sources or references, but there is good detail. Perhaps a word with the editors, of which there seems to be two?LessHeard vanU 12:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Any artists here?
It would be nice if we had a Project barnstar. Anyone here able to design one? --kingboyk 10:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
User:69.120.179.150 and vandalism
We may have a vandal on our hands here, but I can't be sure. 69.120.179.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has made many edits to various articles, including many Beatles albums, changing recording dates and making other edits without explanation. I've left a note on the talk page, but who knows what good it'll do. Other than that, I don't have any power to do anything about it, but I believe you guys do. The problem is, this user has made many changes that have still not been reverted, even with subsequent edits to the articles, and will need to be if they are found to be vandalism. Let me know what you think. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good catch. Looks a tad suspicious. Anyone have a Lewisohn or similar book handy they can check a date or two with? If no answer before the end of the day I'll rollback any changes where he's top of the edit list, better to be safe than sorry. kingboyk
- I've reverted, but not using the admin rollback button as I have no idea if it's vandalism or not. --kingboyk 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as how the user deleted my post to their talk page and continued to make unexplained changes, I'm now convinced that the user is, in fact, a malicious vandal who should be blocked. Also, there were other, similar edits that the user made that were not at the top of the edit list, but were not reverted, either. They should also be checked out. Thoughts? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you can find any questionable changes that I missed, roll them back. Since it's an IP address I can't block as a form of punishment, nor can I block long term, so it's too late to be thinking about a block now. I can only block if he comes back and is vandalising, as a precautionary measure. So, what you need to do if he reappears is post it to WP:AIV for the immediate attention of an admin (or if I appear to be online and you'd rather deal with me, drop a note here or on my talk page). Revert any of his changes which appear to be sneaky vandalism. Assuming good faith can only go so far and I agree with you it looks like vandalism. --kingboyk 11:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, seeing as how the user deleted my post to their talk page and continued to make unexplained changes, I'm now convinced that the user is, in fact, a malicious vandal who should be blocked. Also, there were other, similar edits that the user made that were not at the top of the edit list, but were not reverted, either. They should also be checked out. Thoughts? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've reverted, but not using the admin rollback button as I have no idea if it's vandalism or not. --kingboyk 14:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
McCartney Template
Can I change the Paul McCartney Template, adding The Family Way, A Garland for Linda, Wings Over America, etc..???. Other question: I'm working now in The Paul McCartney Collection, but this week i don't have time to keep writing the article, can you give me a little help, please??? Thanks & Chao--Mr. Manu 18:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome to edit templates, yes, as long as they're not protected. If other people don't like your changes they'll revert. That's how wiki works, so be bold :) That said, I think the McCartney template is not meant to include every album; for example all live albums are already omitted. So, I think the albums you mention are probably too obscure to list (apart from Wings Over America which is far from obscure but a live album... not sure about that one, as I feel it's a very important album... anyone else wanna comment?)
- I don't know anything about The Paul McCartney Collection so I've listed your request on this talk page in the hope that someone else will help you out! Cheers Mr Manu! --kingboyk 08:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it was me who trimmed it down last time! What a dumb ass I am! Anyway, I see Mr Manu has expanded it, and I have no problem with his changes. If others think its too bulky now they can trim it down, as I said before that's wiki. --kingboyk 11:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
