Talk:The Beatles

Shortened footnotes

The {{sfn}} template should be replaced by the {{rp}} template. Then it would be much easier to follow the references. The "References" section is quite ridiculous right now and the "Sources" section is redundant. The footnotes and the sources they refer to are adjacent; having both might make sense in a book, but not here,

I can do the change in five minutes with an awk script. Let me know what you think about it.

Question - Does this make the page number appear in the main text (body of the article) ^{like this}? If so I would say that^pp.25 would make it much harder^pp.29 for our readers to follow the text properly.^pp.27Moxy (talk)

Thank you for you input. It appears like this and this. It does not make the text any harder to read than any other supercript already does (including the single ref numbers themselves). There is no justification for having to click only to see a page number and having to click one more time to get to the actual source. Most people want the source, not the specific page number; if there were to be two steps, the source should come first, and the page number at the second click (if that is even possible).

Furthermore, someone reading a printed copy has to check the reference, and then scan the huge list of sources for the name of the publication, making the numbering almost useless.

One way to solve your readability concern would be to show the page number next to the little letters that appear before the sources (e.g.: ^{^ a:29 b:25-27}), but that would take bigger changes to the wiki.

Have you applied your awk script to a similar article elsewhere and gained acceptance there? If so, fine, we'll try it here; otherwise, best to try it on a lower-profile article first. Uniplex (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Billboard #1 hits

Maybe I can't find it, but the article seems to fail to mention the number of #1 Billboard hits the Beatles achieved. Seems like this should be mentioned in some detail in the legacy or awards section. — GabeMc (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Very good point. I've added the information to the "Awards and achievements" section. DocKino (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody

Joseph Murrells' "Book of Golden Records" (1903-1983) : "It was estimated that the Beatles sold 330 million singles discs collectively by January 1970, the biggest sales for any artist in such a short period". --Roujan (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

'formed in 1960'

why does it say the group formed in 1960? The group was named the Beatles in 1960 but all three main members of that time had actually formed a few years before that. I think that termimonology makes it sound like they met and fromed in 1960. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.173.99 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the Beatles formed in 1956 when the Quarrymen were founded. The Beatles are just the Quarrymen after a name change and some member swaps, IMO. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's always annoyed me the way Wikipedia seems to treat The Quarrymen and The Beatles as two different bands. They changed their name several times. Are they all separate bands? McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And you could say they formed with McCartney joining on 18 October 1957, Harrison auditioning for Lennon in March 1958, or Starr joining in June 1962. The fact is that they were called The Beatles for their first gig in Hamburg on 17 August 1960. That's all folks, as they say.--andreasegde (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Beatles may have first been called the Beatles in 1960, but the band was in existence before that. I hate to use "other stuff exists" arguments, but in this case I think it's relevant -- Just about every band has gone through several name changes before settling on the one they're most known for (Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Grateful Dead, and Coldplay, to name a few) but none of those are listed as different groups. The Beatles are the Quarrymen just like The New Yardbirds are Led Zeppelin, and like Pink Floyd are Sigma 6. The only caveat I would have would be the issue with the mid-90s reunion of some of the original Quarrymen who, I believe, still tour to this day. That may be an issue that would need to be worked out, but I still say that the Quarrymen, as formed by Lennon in '56, is the same band that released Please Please Me on 22 March 1963, and that played the rooftop of Apple Studios on 30 January 1969. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 02:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"I still say that the Quarrymen, as formed by Lennon in '56, is the same band that released Please Please Me". You are joking, right? :))--andreasegde (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Are you saying that Colin Hanton, Duff Lowe et al were members of the Beatles? Good luck finding a source agreeing with you on that one.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said Lowe and Hanton were members of the Beatles when Please Please Me came out -- I said it was the same band. Just like The Moody Blues that released The Magnificent Moodies in 1965 and December in 2003 are the same band, even though only the line-ups only have one member in common. Are we going to start having different articles for every line-up of a band because they must be "different bands" since the members aren't all the same? Slippery slope, methinks. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a concept: How about different articles for bands that had both different names and different lineups? Like, you know, The Beatles vs. The Quarrymen. Pretty clever, huh? That aside, please cite a high-quality source that unambiguously states that The Beatles formed in 1956. If you can't produce even one such source, it's rather silly to continue this debate. DocKino (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about sourcing and accuracy, where's the source for the band forming in 1960? I don't see a citation next to that statement in the lede. Why is my assertion the one with the burden of proof and not yours? Just because it's been in the article all this time doesn't mean it's right. Being called "The Beatles" for the first time is something completely different from the Beatles "forming". "Forming" implies that this is a group whose members had never all played together before, coming together to "form" a group. But the group was, by and large, in existence prior to 1960, and had been since Harrison joined the Quarrymen in '58. The only thing the supposed "formation" of the Beatles in 1960 is based on is a name change -- something the group had done seven times (by my count) before settling on the name "Beatles". The final incarnation of the Quarrymen and the first incarnation of the Beatles have only one member difference (Ken Brown/Stu Sutcliffe). By the time the name "Quarrymen" was used for the last time, the line-up that would become the Beatles was, barring Ringo, fully assembled. The Quarrymen did not break up and later come together to form the Beatles. To quote an article, "The Beatles began in 1957 when John Lennon formed a skiffle group with his friends called The Quarrymen." The Quarrymen became the Beatles through a name change. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes we all agree that The Quarrymen evolved into the The Beatles as you have just pointed out. Even random books not even related to the topic say 1960 - John Montgomery (30 April 2008). The New Wealth of Cities: City Dynamics and the Fifth Wave. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 141–. ISBN 978-0-7546-7415-3. Retrieved 4 September 2011.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is this -- The group was in constant existence as a unit from 1957 to 1970. There is absolutely nothing that happened in 1960 that could be construed as The Beatles "forming". They changed their name to the one that they would become popular under, but that is far and away a different thing from forming. Any source that says that the Beatles formed in 1960 is either misinformed or wrong. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll go along with one point, which is that they decided to adopt the name of The Beatles in 1960: use it, be known as, were booked as; whatever. (BTW, the name change is referenced in the article as [18] Harry 2000a, p. 104., as it should be, and not in the lede)--andreasegde (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A new name may not seem like a big deal , however this would be the point that the old members from The Quarrymen would no longer have any rights over the band. From a legal stand point its a NEW band that do not have to give up any thing to its old group. So in reality we have the legal formation of a group in 1960 that is legally different then the previous group. There is clearly a legal separation between the two groups as stated in the 2 articles.Moxy (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As evidenced by the title of the first section: "1.1 Formation and early years (1957–1962)", the current lead sentence is clearly misleading. Whilst perhaps not perfect, "formed in the late 1950s" would be much closer to the mark. Uniplex (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering the formation of the group was a process that took place in several steps over several years, the statement "...formed in 19XX" is going to be inaccurate to some degree no matter what year is used. I suggest removing the year from the lead sentence and adding a sentence describing the evolution of the group, something like "Evolving from a student skiffle band called the Quarrymen started by John Lennon in 1956, the group later added Paul McCartney and George Harrison and by 1960 had become a full-time working band and adopted the name The Beatles." Piriczki (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Quarrymen, which John Lennon founded in 1956, went through several personnel and had a few name changes. The Quarrymen have their own article so they are being treated as a separate band because that band is still active with members who were Quarrymen. To make things simple, we are stating that The Beatles became The Beatles in 1960. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple in our eyes it may be, but it belies the fact that the OP was confused by what he read. @Piriczki, the Beatles are not particularly notable for their formation (compared to everything else), so I don't think the lead should dwell on it any more than it currently does (IMHO, Stu doesn't warrant mention in the lead but that's another matter). @Moxy, the book you referred to has "formed by 1960": we have "formed in 1960". How about something like: “The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s, and are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...” Uniplex (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As disagreements usually go on this page, I really like this one. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Uniplex's suggestion is an excellent one. While I definitely lean to the "formed in 1960" side of the argument, my own offline survey of encyclopedic sources reveals there's no consensus on which date to pick. Just a minor grammatical correction yields two possibilities:

• The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...”
• The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s. They are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...” DocKino (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The band was formed in 1960 with John, Paul, George, Stu and Pete. Stu left in 1960 and Pete was replaced by Ringo before their first recording session with EMI. The Hamburg and Cavern years, beginning in 1960, helped to shape the Beatle sound. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the proposed rewording contradicts anything you've stated; however, your disagreement did bring to my attention that the beginning of the second paragraph is also based on the understanding that The Beatles formed in 1960: "Initially a five-piece line-up of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums), they built their reputation playing clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg over a three-year period from 1960." That would have to be reworded, as well, if we were to decide to make the lead neutral as to the date of the band's formation. DocKino (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion:

The Beatles were an English rock band, formed as The Quarrymen in Liverpool in 1957, later adopting their final name in 1960. They are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. ... The first line-up of the group to use the name "The Beatles" consited of a five-piece line-up of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Stuart Sutcliffe (bass) and Pete Best (drums), they built their reputation playing clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg over a three-year period from 1960.

It's clunky, but it's a damn good sight more accurate than it is now. We can smooth it out later. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Clunkiness aside, there is no way "The Quarrymen" should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Time to reiterate: The Quarrymen are not all that significant. The Beatles are. And there is a difference. Following your logic--"The Beatles are the Quarrymen"--Eric Griffiths, Pete Shotton, Rod Davis, Len Garry, Colin Hanton, Duff Lowe, and Ken Brown would all have to be listed in the infobox as former Beatles members...and that's a logic I believe very few people would find acceptable. DocKino (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. As I stated before, The Quarrymen have their own article. They are also an active band which The Beatles are not. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I will concede that the Quarrymen probably ought not be mentioned in the first sentence. However, the way the first sentence is worded now is unacceptably inaccurate and confusing to those unfamiliar with the subject. The Beatles existed before they were called The Beatles, just like Richard Starkey existed before he was called Ringo Starr. New suggestion: Let's get rid of all mention of their "formation" in the first sentence, and maybe add a sentence or two on the Quarrymen into the first or second paragraph of the lede. Off-topic here, but does anyone know how exactly the Quarrymen exist today as a legal entity? Do McCartney and the estates of Lennon and Harrison have any control whatsoever over how the name is used? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

‘Getting rid of all mention of their "formation" in the first sentence’ is what was proposed above (see bullets). Are you saying the proposal is still unacceptably inaccurate? (it doesn't mention formation or existence) Uniplex (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Quarrymen are a skiffle group whose music had nothing to do with the music The Beatles made. The Quarrymen consisted of John and his schoolmates. Those schoolmates left by 1960 leaving John, Paul, George and Stu with no regular drummer when they began changing names evolving into The Beatles which recruited Pete for their first trip to Hamburg where The Beatles' sound developed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a spot of confusion going on here; these are the proposals that were made by DocKino above:

• The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...”
• The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s. They are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music. Formed in Liverpool, by 1962 the group consisted of...”

There's no mention in the first sentence of ‘formation’, ‘existence’ or ‘Quarrymen’. Does anyone deem these unacceptably inaccurate? Uniplex (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just delete the "formed". "...history of popular music. By 1962 the group consisted of...". The details are in the article.--andreasegde (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I misread DocKino's proposal as saying that The Beatles were formed "by 1962", which sounds... well, stupid. On second examination, I have no problem with the latter suggestion. I'd like to see it changed to that. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

On considering the pair of proposals, I see I prefer the first. As a sentence, "The Beatles were an English rock band, active throughout the 1960s", lands a bit flat. DocKino (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No objection here. Let's make this happen. I would do it right now, but I'll let Doc take official credit for changing it if he wants. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, though my proposals were based very much on Uniplex's suggested edit. Sensing no objections, I'll make the change and we'll see how it goes. DocKino (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentence removed from lead

I have removed the following sentence from the lead:

"Lennon was murdered outside his home in New York City in 1980, and Harrison died of cancer in 2001. McCartney and Starr remain active".

Another editor has replaced it and challenged me to obtain a consensus for its removal, and I have decided to ask for opinions on whether it should be included or not. I feel that it should not as it is a description of the lives of the members of the band after its dissolution and does not belong in what should be the summary lead of an already long article about the band as a unit. Thoughts, please? Britmax (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC).

I agree. The band members have their own pages, and as Lennon and Harrison they did not die while they were actually in the band, it is not needed.--andreasegde (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Given the depth of the ongoing cultural association of these four individuals with The Beatles, the continued inclusion of those two concise sentences is natural and appropriate. DocKino (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

After the break up, the individual members were/are still notable as Beatles and regularly referred to as such (e.g. Rolling Stone, 2010: "The Beatle and an assortment of "All Starr" musicians took the stage..."). The article has a significant section on the Beatles post 1970. The sentence in question is engaging and entirely appropriate (in fact it's 2 sentences; with a semicolon though, it could become one). Uniplex (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what's "engaging" about being dead, and if anyone doesn't know about Lennon's demise, they haven't been getting out enough.--andreasegde (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's engaging because it completes the story, of all four Beatles. Uniplex (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia -- it's our job to treat people like they don't get out enough. By the same logic we might as well get rid of everything but the most obscure bits of Beatles history. Everyone knows they were an English rock group, right? Let's take that out of the lede. All four Beatles were and are being referred to as "Beatles" well after the break-up. The world sees them as Beatles, and they still saw Lennon as a Beatle when he was killed. The idea that we shouldn't include them since most would be aware of those facts is preposterous. We could delete scores of entire articles on a premise like that. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Oi, knock it off with the attitude.--andreasegde (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we please conduct this debate in a slightly less grumpy way? I mostly agree with Evanh2008, although I don't like the way he expressed his opinion. The Beatles' story is significantly affected by the early deaths of half the core band (never mind the death of Stu Sutcliffe). I think that these sentences belong in the intro, because there's no doubt that for the remaining protagonists, McCartney and Starr, the deaths of Lennon and a fortiori Harrison preclude any prospect of a Beatles reunion. By the same token that Evanh uses, they should be described as an 'English rock group' because, despite what contributors may think, not everyone has heard of the Beatles and not everyone knows who they were. My four-year-old daughter can sing their songs but she barely even understands the concept of a 'rock group'. So can we please have the humility to articulate things that we think are totally obvious? Lexo (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was being grumpy. Apologies if anyone was offended by that. My only point was that the premise that things that we would expect people reading the article to know already should be removed from the article, is not a very good way of going about making a complete and informative encyclopedia article. If people are reading this article, it's safe to assume that they're looking to learn more about the Beatles, so I don't think anything notable should be omitted. And the deaths of two of their members are certainly notable. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

@Lexo, the debate had concluded, with no consensus to remove. Uniplex (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Genres

Since Wikipedia seems to treat Rock and Rock and roll as two distinct genres, and since a good portion of the Beatles' work would seem to fall indisputably into the latter category, would there be any objection to me inserting [{Rock and roll]] into the "Genres" field of the infobox? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with that. As our Rock and roll article acknowledges, "The American Heritage Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary both define rock and roll as synonymous with rock music." Even the Encyclopedia Britannica, which it poses in contrast, treats rock as "more encompassing"—which is not the same as distinct. I believe most people perceive "rock" as a term defining a broader field that largely, or even entirely, embraces rock and roll. Listing both "rock" and "rock and roll", in sum, would always smack of redundancy.

There's also the practical question of what to do about other bands with similarly great generic breadth. Consider our Featured Article on The Kinks, which--just like The Beatles--lists "Rock, pop" in the infobox. Would they get "rock and roll" added, as well, under this concept or not? On what grounds?

No, I believe our established norm works very well in this case. The content of the article--including its lead section--makes quite clear the band's relationship to the less encompassing genre label "rock and roll", so the information is there. No need for and only arguable benefit in this alteration. DocKino (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Rock" is a catch-all for guitar/bass/drum-based music. "Rock and roll" is a specific subgenre from the early 50's/60's (think Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis). The point of "rock music" being listed is for brevity, to essentially cover things like "blues rock", "folk rock", "pyschedelic rock", "hard rock", etc, that editors don't want crowding the field. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 21:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)