Talk:The Beatles/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Fifth Beatle

Is the concept of the fifth Beatle important enough to include in the intro?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. It's definitely something to mention in the leads at the Brian Epstein and George Martin articles, of course, but imo it's not sufficiently notable in the context of this article. JG66 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sales

What, now they are down to 500 million? Who is responsible for this crap? The Guinness Book of Records put them over a billion in 1989, I believe. 2607:FEA8:9660:6D50:CD5C:4442:44D:6EBC (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

For years Guinness World Records have had the line "All-time sales have been estimated by EMI at over one billion discs and tapes" in each edition. How EMI estimated that, I don't know. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ringo Starr e Paul Mcartney - E3 2009.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

I have added a modified version of timeline from the members page due to it being more detailed than the one that was added and having better readability. 80s Sam (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Add mention of the new Revolver super deluxe edition in this article

Should be added to the "2020s" section of the article. The Get Back project is no longer the most recent Beatles related project. 92.15.144.174 (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Support for terrorism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article should mention that The Beatles openly sided with IRA terrorism. Hiarat (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the Beatles did not. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Lennon's family confirmed he funded the IRA, and McCartney recorded a pro-IRA song that was banned by the BBC.

Unless there is some kind of source to back this claim up then it would be unsuitable for the article. If there is a source for this claim then link to it here or edit the article directly with it.Dubarr18 (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/john-lennons-family-hit-the-roof-when-funds-were-donated-to-ira-26125005.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiarat (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not appear "The Beatles openly sided with IRA terrorism." First, it's only the two members that are discussed here - and it would appear to have happened after the band broke up? The John Lennon page discusses it. And its unclear how "open" the support was and how directly he supported terrorism. Perhaps something on the Paul McCartney page about the song would be appropriate. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personnel and timeline

I placed an unrefsec tag on the section, but I don't want to hastily start removing things. I understand that some of these may be sourced in the text of the article, but much of it (such as dates) is not. There's also the issue that we could cull through articles on members, songs, and albums and possibly find some support. But I really think citations belong in the Personnel section. I'm particularly concerned about the timeline. I would be OK for a while if citations are added to Personnel over time, but we can't chop up the timeline. I'll admit that I dislike timelines in most band articles because they tend to be unsourced. I really don't think a timeline adds much (if anything) to an article. If I want to see when John played harmonica, I can easily look immediately above the timeline and see it in words. I think most timelines are not added to provide information, but instead are added by people who like to make timelines. I'm asking for opinions about my dilemma. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Add other years in which the band was active?

Should "1995-1996" be added to the "years active" section in the articles info box to account for the Anthology project and the two reunion songs (Free as a Bird and Real Love) that came with it? CY223 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed in one form or another more than once in the past, never with a consensus to change anything. Anthology just used previously recorded material, so that isn't considered active in the sense of working together to create new material. None of the surviving Beatles considered Free as a Bird or Real Love new songs, nor do the major Beatles experts. Those songs were previously recorded by Lennon; the others embellished the songs. Referring to those songs as "Beatles" songs was mostly a marketing gimmick. I think at best we could call them John Lennon recordings that feature McCartney, Harrison, and Starr. Sundayclose (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it would also be very confusing to the uninitiated.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent number of studio albums

The Discography section of this article lists 13 studio albums, including Magical Mystery Tour. However, the article The Beatles discography states that The Beatles released 12 studio albums, considering Magical Mystery Tour to be an LP in the UK (and a studio album only in the US).

The other article has reached a consensus that there are 12 studio albums, so I think this article should be changed to match that. Perhaps there should be a footnote explaining that some sources count 13 albums instead of 12. Vigilant Cosmic Penguin (talk | contribs) 🐧 18:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, MMT has been accepted as a studio album ever since the albums were re-issued on CD over 35 years ago. It's now part of the "core catalogue." Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Beatles catalogue

In this section, there is a claim that two songs credited to all four Beatles are Flying and Dig It. However, Carry That Weight from Abbey Road is also credited to all four Beatles. NoMoreNameOptions (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Dig It is not mentioned in that section. Ringo is mentioned as co-writer for two songs, but it's not an exhaustive list of his writing credits ("Starr received co-writing credit before 1968, such as 'What Goes On' and 'Flying'" [bold added]). It does not say that those are the only two. Ringo has several writing credits, but he did not co-write Carry That Weight. Sundayclose (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I am confused. On the Wikipedia page for Abbey Road under track listings, it is stated that all four Beatles wrote Carry That Weight. However, if you look at the Carry That Weight song information page, it states that the song is credited to Lennon-McCartney. This is contradictory. Both claims cannot be correct. Neither claim is cited. NoMoreNameOptions (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@NoMoreNameOptions: I think you might be looking at the lead vocalists column. It is laid out a bit confusingly, to be fair! Carry That Weight was a Lennon–McCartney. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 05:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, that explains it. You are correct. The four Beatles names are under lead vocals for Carry That Weight. That is where I was confused, but not now. Thanks. NoMoreNameOptions (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wings as a spinoff?

Should Wings be added as a spinoff like Plastic Ono Band is? I don’t see why not MCMax05 (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say no. The difference is that Wings weren't formed until well after the Beatles split up, whereas the Plastic Ono Band were an actual spin-off during the group's lifetime, as John needed an outlet for material not suitable for the Beatles to record. (BTW didn't the infobox used to say "associated acts"? Haven't kept up with the changes.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

John Lennon lead guitar

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/why-john-lennon-played-lead-guitar-on-the-beatles-get-back/ in this article it states that during George Harrisons departure Lennon played lead guitar. 80s Sam (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Well obviously, as he was the band's other guitarist. Why do we need to know though? I question whether we even need the timeline at all for a group that did not have a complicated lineup history.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need the timeline. In fact, I don't think that graphic band timelines in general serve a useful purpose. They're difficult to see and understand, and the same information can be more clearly seen and understood in a list. In fact, I propose that we remove the timeline in this article. The main reason we have timelines in band articles is that some editors like to create them; they see them in other articles and decide to create one in another article. Sundayclose (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you're right - there wasn't enough thought as to whether it would be suitable in this article. I support removal. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Recovered Nagra Reels from 2003

In 2003, police recovered stolen reel-to-reel tapes of the Beatles apparently from the Let it Be era. I found a few news articles about this but nothing in depth of what the tapes contain. Anyway, I can't seem to find it mentioned in any of our Beatles articles. Just wondering if this deserves a mention somewhere?

• BBC News - Stolen Beatles tapes found in Australia
• CBS News - Police 'Get Back' More Beatles Tapes
• The Age - Police recover stolen Beatles recordings

Not reliable, but interesting source:

• almost beatles songs

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The name "Beatles"

It may be obvious and implicit to some that the name "Beatles" is partly a reference to the word "beat" as in "beat groups" / "beat boom" / "beatnik" or wherever the original slang or term came from. Still, it's not mentioned in this otherwise thorough article.

Later when discussing the name, Lennon even said, "It was beat and beetles and when you said it, people thought of crawly things, and when you read it, it was beat music"

https://americansongwriter.com/the-meaning-behind-the-band-name-the-beatles/

Anyway - I always thought it was obvious and it just jumps out at you (well, it does to me), but the article doesn't seem to acknowledge it. It's surely worth adding? Charliepenandink (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this should be covered in the article. I'm a bit surprised that it's not covered already. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem including it, but only within the context of John being obtuse and a punner. John never identified just one basis for the name. John's "flaming pie" story illustrates his humor about the name, and even became the name of a McCartney album. Sundayclose (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Timeline

I guess that the timeline now at List of members of bands featuring members of the Beatles#Timeline was removed following discussion at #John Lennon lead guitar above.

I think that this article should at least link to such a timeline. Andrewa (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Beatles as a pun

Based on the comments on Reddit, it seems huge numbers of people (including me) never realized that "beatles" and "beetles" are spelled differently. It seems obvious once this it pointed out that it's a pun based on "beat". I added a mention of this to the article, but User:Sundayclose reverted with the edit summary "Unsourced and not necessary". I'm sure there are a dozen sources that make this connection we could track down, but there's no point doing that work if this note is going to be deleted anyway. Do other editors think this is worth mentioning? -- Beland (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. After you find a reliable source, get consensus here to make the edit. Also see Talk:The Beatles#The name "Beatles" above. Sundayclose (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said I wanted to cite Reddit as a source, and have no intention of doing so. It appears the above section already establishes consensus for a note about the spelling of the name, so I will do so. I'm surprised that after having participated in the previous discussion and agreed there should be a note about the spelling of the name, that you would then mark a similar addition as "unnecessary". -- Beland (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that two or three editors can create a consensus on an article with as much traffic as this one. But if you add it, note my caveat in the previous section about the fact that Lennon (in a style typical of him) was obtuse and never identified one and only one basis for the name. Don't present it as such. Sundayclose (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Image use policy

I have opened a discussion about an image used on this page over at the Image use policy talk page. Tkbrett (✉) 00:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Reorganizing the History section

I feel like the History section of the page needs some reorganization. I think that the major sub-sections "Touring years" and "Studio years" are too broad, and from what I've seen the main consensus among Beatles fans and music critics is that their recording career as a group had three eras, Beatlemania (Please Please Me - Help), Transitional (Rubber Soul - Magical Mystery Tour) and Apple (The Beatles - Let It Be). I could go on and on and on about why I think so, but to make things short I recently attempted to edit the history section based on the consenses I've heard, so you can check that edit out to get a better idea of how I think it should be organized. However my edit was quickly reverted and I was told to "get consensus" on this, so I'm wondering if my edit made more sense. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

We need a lot more than "from what I've seen the main consensus among Beatles fans and music critics". Your claiming something about fans and critics doesn't make it true. The headers separated by years is much clearer and far superior to the changes you made. You need a clear consensus here to make such a major change to the WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS that has been in the article for many years. Sundayclose (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So putting Revolver and Please Please Me in the same section and implying that the former has more in common with the latter era-wise than it does with albums like Sgt. Pepper and MMT is "far superior"? I get that Sgt Pepper has a stronger legacy, but DSOTM despite being the Pink Floyd album with the strongest legacy, it isn't the first in its subsection of albums on the band's wiki page. Furthermore, I don't see making some minor reorganizations to the history section as a "major" change to the page like you suggested it was. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a major change, and you have not used any sources to justify that change. Tkbrett (✉) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Spanish, Russian and German Wikipedia all list the Beatles' studio era as beginning with Revolver so I think the English page should follow suit. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

English Wikipedia has no obligation to "follow suit". That's an insufficient justification. As Tkbrett has already explained, you have provided no sources to justify the change. Other Wikipedias (or any Wikipedia) are not reliable sources. You need consensus here to make the change. Sundayclose (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

And it turns out that even that weak argument has no basis in reality. Those Wikipedias do not have a demarcation for "Studio years" that begins with Revolver. And it's quite obvious you didn't even look at the Russian Wikipedia. That article is a total of one paragraph made up of three sentences, none of which refers to any album. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@HawkNightingale175: When someone challenges an edit you make and reverts it, it is entirely inappropriate for you to restore your edit without consensus, as you did here. Stop edit warring and wait for consensus. If you need a warning about edit warring, consider this the warning and read WP:EW. Sundayclose (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove the album templates.

Look, there’s already twenty-five templates on here. We don’t need twelve additional ones that don’t link to this page. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Please explain the harm in keeping the templates. The list is collapsible, so it's not a matter of how much scrolling is necessary to get to the bottom of the page. It's useful navigational information for readers. They have been in the article for years, and in my many years editing Beatles articles, I have never known of anyone except you to complain about them. So again, what is so harmful in keeping them that they must be removed? Sundayclose (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t there a style advice that states that a page shouldn’t have that many templates? Especially if they don’t link to the page they’re on? Also, is there a consensus to have them on here? First off, the page is semi-protected, so your average joe who is content with editing Wikipedia anonymously can’t edit this. Second, considering on how hostile you’ve been, I feel like anyone who want to get rid of them gives up lest they enter a stupid edit war with you over the removal of some templates. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes there is a consensus to have them on here. Read WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. There is no "style advice" that applies to all articles, except WP:MOS is a general guideline for all articles. It varies depending on the size of the article, the topic, the notability of the subject, and many other factors. In short, there is nothing that says templates that aid in navigation and have been in the article for years must be removed because of the number of templates. Disagreeing with someone and explaining that policies must be followed is not hostility. On the other hand, telling an editor "Are you incapable of saying anything that isn’t a prompt?" is pretty close to being a personal attack. This isn't about me or you. It's about doing what's best for the article, even if you personally have a preference for a different number of templates. So far I haven't seen any reasonable justification for such a major removal of templates. If enough editors support it here, it's worth discussing. Sundayclose (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Paul McCartney wrote I want to hold your Hand

Abbey Rosd studios have fond out with a statement that Paul McCartney wrote about 95 % of ” I want to hold your hand”. The song was Paul's love song to Jane Asher written in the Basement of the Asher house. When John came there the song was almost finished. And as it was written on a piano an instrument John could not play then he only made a few suggestions. Paul Said in Melody maker no 1 in 1964 ” I was told I had to get this song really going so I started banging out on the piano, first came the catch line, then followed the rest of the text” I wrote the text down and showed the song to the others and our producer the next day. We recorded it the next day. In Pauls songwriting lyrics to ” I Want to hold your hand” it says ” I wanna hold your hand” as Paul was going after the American market. The British publishing company changed the text to ” I want to hold your hand” as it was more British. The title came from Pauls song ” I wanna be your man” a variation of that song, and the Melody came from Pauls ” Hold me tight”. In his latest book he writes ” I was 21 year old when I wrote I want to hold your hand. There was an erotism behind the song, everything I did at that time was erotism being the driving force behind everything I did. I want to hold your hand, open brackets ( and probanly a lot more. You can hear when they recoord the song that it is very much McCartneys song. He Tells the Other exactly What each one should do and gets very angett when they dont get it wright. Among then ” drums come in in an attach, guitars follows, and the song is fast”. You can Also hear him get dissapointed at the others when they dont get it right. Screaming in dissapontment ” come on guys get it right” Something Paul only did with his oen songs. 217.213.122.219 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What's your point? Are you suggesting an edit to the article? If so, we need reliable sources to support the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"List of Beatles members" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Beatles members to the article List of members of bands featuring members of the Beatles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 17 § List of Beatles members until a consensus is reached. Many other similar redirects to the same target, including The Beatles' line-upsThe Beatles' line-ups, are also being discussed in the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Beatles Rock only band? Mrdt8910 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles were more than "just" a Rock band. I believe a more accurate estimation of what they achieved would be better stated that The Beatles were a Pop / Rock band and that should be included in this Wikipedia page and follow suit with other Beatles related pages. Mrdt8910 (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation in band name

Shouldn't it be "...was a member of The Beatles." and not "...was a member of the Beatles." "The" is part of the band name so the "t" of "the" should be capitalised in the middle of a sentence right? BrightOrion (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC) BrightOrion

See MOS:THEBAND. Tkbrett (✉) 03:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks! BrightOrion (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

File:The Beatles - All You Need Is Love & Baby, You're a Rich Man, 1967 (cropped).jpg

It looks like the last time the main image was talked about was in two brief discussions in 2018. I've never been a hige fan of the New York arrival collage. In particular, I don't think it does George a great service. However, I noticed this photo used on the main page for the "Now and Then" new item, which seems to have been uploaded and added to the page in April. To me, this is a much better image for the infobox. It's high quality, and is an actual group photo of the band. While I get the leaning toward a Beatle-mania era photo, I think a 1967 photo is also a great representation of what many see as the height of their output in the studio. Any thoughts on changing the main image? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Got to agree with this one. The existing infobox photo really doesn't flatter any of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. The 1967 photo is much better than that black and white collage of four mediocre photos. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the original infobox image being fine, I am also confident it is PD, something I do not think is as certain for the image you are proposing. Tkbrett (✉) 02:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, excellent point and good digging. My quick look at the description didn't catch that the PD status may not quite be there. And the actual Billboard scan is not quite of the quality we might want. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This certainly needs clarification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite so. But if the color photo can be established as in the public domain, I also support it as the main image, regardless of what I see as any minor quality issues. Jusdafax (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

First and no 1

The article continually describes albums etc as the first that ever did something or no 1 in the charts etc or uses some other superlative. Reading through the article becomes monotonous. I think some of these descriptions could be left on the individual pages of albums etc. Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Status of Norman Chapman and Chas Newby, plus a Timeline request

Hello all,

I noticed that (fairly recently) someone moved Norman Chapman and Chas Newby to the touring members section. I disagree with this change and was hoping to find consensus here. Norman Chapman, according to his own Wiki page (I admit I'm not too familiar with his role in the early Beatles' story), intended to remain in the group; he wasn't meant to be a temporary substitute like Jimmie Nicol. Regarding the late Chas Newby, while he did fill in for a brief time for an absent Stuart Sutcliffe, John Lennon reportedly (as cited in the article here, I think) asked him to come to Hamburg with them, even though Stuart Sutcliffe remained in the group for several more months. Newby turned him down. Regarding the timeline, since the name "The Beatles" was created by John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe, why is Stuart listed as joining the band after John, Paul, and George? Technically the four started the band together.

Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi country

for is a great way for people who have to be a little bit nervous to be able and have Hi you have to do it again and the next time they get a little bit of the time I 41.116.119.17 (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

the other two are not abad and the other is not a good relationship but I think they have 41.116.119.17 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Know the difference from the fact

have been a great job with a lot more of a great way to do it than he was with me in a way I was 🏝🏖🎇🎆 41.116.119.17 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Credited session musicians

What is "label billing"? I ask because the statement in the article "Preston received label billing on the "Get Back" single – the only musician ever to receive that acknowledgment on an official Beatles release" may be false. You'll find that Alan Civil got credit for his horn playing on Revolver, and the article on Civil says there was a total of five such, presumably he, Preston and three others. 71.245.188.249 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it means that Preston's name is actually on the label of the single. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as John and WWGB have pointed out, it's that he is credited as the main artist or one of the main artists. To use your Revolver example, Alan Civil would have received label billing if the Revolver cover (and the label on the vinyl record itself) credited it to "The Beatles with Alan Civil." You are correct that very few outside musicians received credits on Beatles releases, but the albums or singles were always billed as "The Beatles," with the exception of My Bonnie b/w The Saints ("The Beatles with Tony Sheridan") and Get Back b/w Don't Let Me Down ("The Beatles with Billy Preston"). (I don't think I forgot any, but who knows?) Hope this helps, EPBeatles (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes me realize many might never have seen a real record label! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles Breakup

I found while doing reasearch of what happened in 1971, an article talking about their breakup, now I would love to edit the page and add these details myself, but unfortunetely I can't since my account is new. This is the article I'm referring to. If you are here you probably want to edit something already yourself, so please consider doing this extra work. Brekslo (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it covered in the Break-up of the Beatles article already? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

The Beatles are the best selling band of all time with sales over 500 million. 58.107.140.44 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. The article says "The Beatles are the best-selling music act of all time, with estimated sales of 600 million units worldwide." with two reliable sources. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Dee Millar

other act touring with the Beatles 68.69.80.181 (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Does not seem to have been a notable musician. Do you have any source(s)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming biopics

It may be noteworthy that BAFTA and Academy Award winner Sam Mendes is slated to direct four biopics of The Beatles, one for each member, all due to be released in 2027. Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and Olivia seem to have greenlighted the deal already. Sources: Guardian, Variety, BBC. --2003:DA:CF4E:6314:B881:443:2A4E:E651 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Blackjacks are not The Beatles

It seems the last time this was discussed here was in 2009, but new evidence has come up to pretty much disprove it.

First off, something I find strange is that the citation on Wikipedia to "prove" this is Bob Spitz's 2005 book "The Beatles: The Biography," but this is not the earliest source. The earliest source is from Mark Lewinsohn's 1992 book "The Complete Beatles Chronicle."

This is the first written source of "The Black Jacks" being the original name for The Quarrymen (bottom left of page 12, paragraph starting with "For their first week"). Every article and most books I have read that claim the origin of The Blackjacks cite this Mark Lewinsohn book.

However, in 2013, Mark Lewinsohn released the most comprehensive history of The Beatles called "The Beatles - All These Years: Volume One: Tune In." In this book, Lewinsohn personally interviewed many people who were involved during the early years of The Beatles.

On this page, Pete Shotton, who Lewinsohn originally claimed created the name The Black Jacks with John, now says that he created the name The Quarrymen (left page, starting with "The group lacked a name"). Bill Smith, who was part of the original lineup for The Quarrymen, stated that "as I remember, no other names were suggested."

On the same page, a paragraph lower, Mark Lewinsohn writes, "it’s been written that they were originally the Blackjacks, maybe for a week, but no one can definitively confirm it." If Lewinsohn, the man who originated the story of The Blackjacks, is now claiming that no one he interviewed can confirm it, I think this is pretty solid evidence that The Blackjacks was never the original name for The Quarrymen.

This is all from my own personal research on the internet, so I could easily be missing some crucial information. But, from the information and citations used on The Beatles Wiki page, seeing Lewinsohn change his stance on the matter, and John Lennon never once talking about The Blackjacks name, I believe it is not real.

If anyone has found information to disprove my claims, let me know! Coleypoleyhair (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Coleypoleyhair: Yes, the Blackjacks were an entirely different group. In the "Extended Special" edition of Tune In, Lewisohn writes that the Blackjacks were a four-piece composed of Bill Barlow, Chas Newby, Ken Brown and Pete Best (p. 570). They debuted at the Casbah on December 20, 1959, and they likely broke-up in April 1960 (pp. 570, 609). Lewisohn continues: "How many times they played together will remain vague: Chas and Bill think maybe a dozen, all but two of them at the Casbah, Pete reckons fewer: 'We played a couple of times at the Casbah [and] we did a couple of weddings.' The Blackjacks were only ever low-key: their name never appeared in any [Liverpool] Echo ad, or in the West Derby Reporter or anywhere else; ... (p. 609)" Tkbrett (✉) 01:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So should we change the sentence on The Beatles Wiki page that says, "They briefly called themselves the Blackjacks before changing their name to the Quarrymen after discovering that another local group was already using the name."? That's the sentence that also cites the Spitz book.

It's under the history section, but it's also on the Wiki page for The Quarrymen, so if we want to remove the claim here since it has little to no evidence supporting it, we should probably change it on The Quarrymen page too.

I know I wrote like a 400-word essay just to change one sentence, but I wanted to provide proof!

I do still wonder how The Blackjacks got tied up with John Lennon and The Beatles origin. I know Pete Best was in the band, but they had nothing to do with The Quarrymen! Coleypoleyhair (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it does need to be changed. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Lewisohn is a more reliable source than Spitz, certainly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

Change "They briefly called themselves the Blackjacks, before changing their name to the Quarrymen after discovering that another local group were already using the name." to "They were called The Quarrymen, a reference to their school song "Quarry men old before our birth." Coleypoleyhair (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

References

 Done per consensus generated in above section. Courtesy pings to Pawnkingthree, zmbro, and Tkbrett. —Sirdog (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

New Main Image

Instead of the black-and-white main image, I changed the photo to a colored photograph of the Beatles, taken in the same year. Color photography gives a better depiction of the band. Wcamp9 (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the previous photo, which is brighter and more cheerful. This one is too dark and sombre. WWGB (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The previous one was better. EttuBach (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

While I think maybe the idea of colour picture isn't the worse, I very much belive this one does not show them in a flattering manner, especially Harrison. Maybe there could be found another nicer picture of the group. Also, btw, since we are in the topic, why isn't there the Beatles logo in the infobox? Does the copyright prevents us from using it there?Artemis Andromeda (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Eiga-Joho-1966-January-4 (cropped).jpg

This is a 1965 colour image that could be considered for the infobox, no head collage needed. The Beatles are facing the camera here for the photo and I think the lack of other people visible in the background is also an improvement on the current image.

To my knowledge band logos aren't typically included in infoboxes because most fall under copyright restrictions, even if the Beatles' might not. It also could be seen as an unnecessary decorative addition, and in my own reasoning I add that many bands actively use several logos. Miklogfeather (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing Main Image

I believe we should change the main image to the Beatles arriving at JFK Airport. Rather than four cropped squares of the image, we should just have the original. It is being nominated for featured image and valued image too, so why not? Also, bands such as Queen, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC with free images use them, not squares of band mates faces. Why not the Beatles, they are no exception. It would be frankly stupid not to use the original image. And also, can we include a band logo in the infobox? Wcamp9 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the main image is good.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree and especially now that it is featured Wcamp9 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd also be in favor of the uncropped JFK shot personally. Is the objection to it that the folks in the background are distracting?

I also think the JFK shot is better quality than either color images proposed in the section above. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, since it's Featured now, I'll change it Wcamp9 (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the uncropped group photo. All the other faces detract from the subjects of the article. WWGB (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think the band is the clear focus of the photo (as they are the only figures in the foreground), but I also obviously know who the Beatles are, so I understand the argument. What about a crop just above their heads? Can't produce an example right now but can later. This would cut off Paul and George's wave, but would also remove most of the background figures. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The wide shot is a better picture, but the crop is better for illustrating the individual members' faces. The crop is better suited for the infobox, while the wide shot works better in the body. Tkbrett (✉) 19:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Years active

now that the beatles have released a new track, should the years active be changed to “1960-1970, 2023” 92.11.169.139 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They also released new tracks in 1995 and 1996, but consensus up to now has been that was not a fully-fledged reunion and therefore should not be listed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should change it. I mean they were active again to release the song so I can't see no reason why it should be changed Adavid299 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The Threetles is not the Beatles. As George Harrison said in 1989, "There will be no Beatles reunion as long as John Lennon remains dead". Tkbrett (✉) 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And 5 years later, Harrison changed his mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. 41.174.50.101 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that the years active section should be changed to ''1960-1970'', 2023''. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to add 2023, then why not 1995? Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles were not active in 2023. Only Paul and Ringo (The Twotles?) were active. WWGB (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

They did use John Lennon's voice from a demo recording, they also used Ai on it. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a footnote after the "1960–1970" mentioning the one-off completions of songs in 1995–96 and 2023. While it's probably not enough for direct inclusion, I think it warrants a footnote. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is enough for consensus, but I agree with regards to adding 1994-1996 (or whatever the specific dates were) and 2022(-2023?) in a footnote attached to the years active section. These three songs are Beatles songs: all four are on them, and they were recorded and released as Beatles songs. Regarding George's quote, that was before they reunited (regardless of the definition) to work on Anthology in general (and the three reunion songs in particular). (And, theoretically, we could also maybe add 1981 because of "All Those Years Ago" and Ringo's second wedding having the three surviving Beatles on it.) I don't think there's any need to change the timeline, though, even though no one mentioned that here. I'd love to hear other thoughts. Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1981 had three out of the four members playing some music together in a studio not under the Beatles name and privately attending a wedding. It doesn’t come anywhere close to counting. Humbledaisy (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

With 1981, I was just throwing it out there. That is a very good (and obvious) point (that I forgot) about All Those Years Ago, but I still think Ringo's second wedding is possible. I've never read about it in a biography yet (not that it may not be there, but just that I haven't read as many books on the band as I'd like), but it is possible that Ringo or a guest at the wedding (maybe a drunk guest, given the way weddings usually run) referred to the group as The Beatles. For a comparison (that may or may not work well), I believe CCR's uncredited appearances on one of Tom Fogerty's solo albums, plus two reunion by performances by two or all or the surviving members at class reunions or something, are considered to be CCR reunions. So, yeah, maybe it would make more sense to leave All Those Years Ago out, but I still believe strongly that sessions for the three reunion singles should be placed in a footnote (and possibly the band members section in the article). Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What do reliable secondary sources say?

• In the first volume of The Beatles as Musicians (1999), Walter Everett describes the songs as "the first post-1969 recordings involving all four group members" (p. 286), while also describing the group working on the songs as "the three ex-Beatles" and "the Threetles" (p. 286–287).
• Alan W. Pollack refers to the songs as simply "new Beatles songs".
• In the epilogue to the second edition of Tell Me Why (2002), Tim Riley describes the songs as "reunion singles" and he describes the Anthology as a "reunion project" (p. 390).
• In Volume 2 of The Beatles Diary (2001) by Keith Badman, he alternates between calling it a "Beatles reunion" (p. 519) and referring to the group as "The 'Threatles'" (p. 521).
• In Revolution in the Head (1997), Ian MacDonald writes "the ex-Beatles" (p. 377) and "the former Beatles" (p. 378) when describing work on the songs. In the preface to the first revised edition, he places the term "reunion" in scare quotes (p. xv).
• In The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles (2009), different writers provide different takes. John Kimsey describes the '90s songs as "new Beatles song[s]" (p. 236), but Gary Burns is dismissive, often using scare quotes to describe the '90s songs, which he writes "were released under the Beatles' name" (p. 218). He also writes: "A reunion of sorts finally happened in 1995, with the surviving 'Threetles' adding accompaniment to two John Lennon demo tapes. ... A music video was produced and released for each of the 'new' songs." (p. 218). He also refers to it as "the long-anticipated, albeit virtual, reunion" (p. 222).
• In The Beatles In Context (2020), Walter J. Podrazik writes that "Paul, George, and Ringo [got the Beatles back together] with the video of their new song 'Free As A Bird.'" (p. 146), and Joe Rapolla writes "the surviving band members dubbed on top of two Lennon demos to produce the first new Beatles songs in a quarter-century" (p. 319).
• In the third edition of The Rough Guide to the Beatles (2009), Chris Ingham refers to the group as "the 'Threetles'" (p. 73), while using scare quotes to describe the songs as "the Threetles' two tracks" (p. 133), "'new' Beatles music" (p. 73) and "the 'new Beatles single'" (p. 74).

On the whole, I think the above indicates that there is no consensus among Beatles scholarship as to whether "Free As a Bird" and "Real Love" can actually be deemed new Beatles songs. Some describe them as such, while others refer to Paul, George and Ringo as a distinct entity. Tkbrett (✉) 13:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I should also point out that this proposal has been raised quite a bit on this talk page over the last couple decades, and the result has either been no consensus for a change, or a consensus against including anything beyond 1960–1970. Here is a good read. Tkbrett (✉) 02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, main period of activity is 60-70, but at least a footnote should point out these brief periods of work in the nineties and this decade. Bedivere (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with adding a complicating note into the infobox. The subsequent collaborations are already covered extensively in the body and in a dedicated article, and there is a sentence mentioning them in the lead. Better to leave the infobox as a simple summary rather than trying to complicate it for new readers. Tkbrett (✉) 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

A few points (well, seven actually):

1. Arguments invoking the "Threetles" seem to be based on the proposition that the "Threetles" are something different than the Beatles instead of the "Threetles" being a subset of the Beatles (i.e. still the Beatles).
2. There's no such thing as the "Threetles". I checked Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, etc. and I cannot find a single song from a band by that name.
3. The Beatles are whatever they say that they are. I checked their website and it says "Now and Then" is a Beatles song.
4. Most of the arguments against Beatles being active in 1995-1996 and 2023 seems be based on the WP:TRUTH: that because not all Beatles truly participated in the new recordings, it shouldn't really count.
5. I applaud Tkbrett's checking what reliable sources say. It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.
6. This is a WP:Featured article and not counting the Anthology reunion seems to have long-standing article and community consensus. It's up to those wanting to change the years active to convince the other editors of the merits of the change.
7. This dispute seems rather WP:LAME to me.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This dispute is lame, especially the sentence that started this whole thing. I assume IPs and other editors who have done silly edits like this are young people who had no prior knowledge of the Anthology stuff. The Beatles were active from 1960 to 1970. Period. All other material released under that name were not done with the full band so everything else doesn't apply. If we want to add a footnote explaining "FAaB", "RL", and "NaT" then we can, but the active years should stay 60–70, full stop. – zmbro _(talk)

When Cadbury were sold to Kraft, that was the end of Cadbury in my eyes. But that is not how brands work. Band names are brands. The Beatles brand released albums and singles of new material from 1962-70, 1994-5, and 2023. That is the official word, it is supported by numerous sources posted here and in media reports and press releases. There is no wikipedia-worthy requirement for a band to include all original members. eg, Queen is listed as "1970-present", even though many fans might argue the band ended when Freddie died. ACDC have been active from 1970-present, despite only 1 member featuring on every album. 3 Beatles got together in 1994-5, wrote and recorded together, and released two singles as The Beatles. That is fact, and is mentioned within the main article. That is "being active". For what it's worth, less band activity took place in 1970, where only one song was recorded, also without John (not even a tape). M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If we only include time John, Paul, George, and Ringo were together in the studio or on stage, the Beatles were active from 1962-69. If we include all years the band was calling themselves "The Beatles" and were performing or recording, we have "1960-70, 94-95, 22-23". The "2022-23" feels silly for one track, but the recording process did span both years, if we trust Paul's claim to have "just finished" clearing up John's vocals in June 2023. If we consider the release years themselves to be activity, there is no debate that 1970 or 2023 should also be included. M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

This would cover every instance of performance, recording, or releasing of new material under the name "The Beatles", which is what this Wikipedia page covers. 1960-70, 1994-95, 2022-23.M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree.New Radicals and Pink Floyd are examples off the top of my head of bands that released two songs without formal reunion announcements and no concerts, and their infoboxes consider them as active years (2024 and 2022, respectively). At least a footnote should be included. Lucafrehley (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

(cont) 19:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

When were the Beatles active?

I know their final album let it be released in 1970, but didn’t they sign the breakup papers in 1974? Should the years active be changed to 1960-1974? 2603:8001:8001:F591:B9A4:BEBD:E913:9657 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The 1974 dissolution was a legal dissolution of The Beatles and Co., one of their legal entities. Specifically, a partnership set up basically as a tax shelter which received all non-publishing income and was owned 5% by each Beatle and 80% by Apple (itself owned 25% by each Beatle). While an important step in the breakup and legal drama, its dissolution (or continued existence until 1974) didn't really have any bearing on the Beatles as a recording or performing musical act (Which the "years active" field is for). It was only formed in 1967 (and their earlier partnership, The Beatles Ltd. was formed in 1963). The musical act the Beatles is not coterminous with a corporation they set up to receive revenue. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I do know that the last song (now and then) was produced in 2023 for some more information 50.127.5.36 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Songs modified after Lennon's death by the surviving Beatles are not considered part of their active years because the Beatles never worked together as a band on those songs. A number of their songs were remixed after the breakup, but they were not performed by the group as a whole. The last Beatles song recorded was I Me Mine in January 1970. At that point the band was a trio because Lennon had quit. Sundayclose (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the final song is “The End”, which was the last recording session to feature all 4 2603:8001:8001:F591:B868:2005:C4E5:B1EF (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No, The End is on Abbey Road which was recorded in 1969. Look, read the articles on these songs instead of speculating. All of this is well documented. The issue isn't when they all four recorded a song together. It's what the last song recorded by the Beatles is, which is I Me Mine. The band still existed as a trio in 1970 when they recorded I Me Mine. Sundayclose (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok but it’s actually posthumous contributions by John and George to a demo 2603:8001:8001:F591:B868:2005:C4E5:B1EF (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No one records after they are dead. The posthumous contributions were made by the surviving band members after the Beatles as a band no longer existed. Sundayclose (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

True. 2603:8001:8001:F591:6DEE:5DDE:D441:6AB6 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This exact thing was discussed just over a year ago. At present, it is still at the top of this talk page. The consensus then, as it has been for many years, is to leave the infobox as 1960–1970. Tkbrett (✉) 03:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No Mention of Billy Preston

Shouldn't Preston be mentioned in the list of associated artists?! 2A01:E0A:9AA:C9C0:ECCD:B3A3:B7EE:15E3 (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It is strange that Jimmie Nicol subbed in The Beatles on six days and is listed at the top of Template:The Beatles, whereas Preston recorded and performed with them over ten days and is not listed there. WWGB (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Missing: How Epstein's attention was drawn to the Beatles

I wonder why this story is not told here, where a lad requested "My Bonnie by the Beatles" to Epstein in his NEMS record store? Was it just never mentioned yet, or was it mentioned but deleted because it was considered too anecdotal? The story is told in the wiki article: The Beatles in Hamburg J.Moondog (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

if there are no objections, I will work on the addition of the aforementioned story. J.Moondog (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I just realized that this missing section is oddly found complete in the article "The Beatles in Hamburg". I wrote in the "Talk" of that article that I was planning to move it from the Hamburg article to the main article, here, J.Moondog (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Question to revisor @Tkbrett: why massive revert?

Hi Tkbrett, Strange that all of a sudden, after close to a week, a massive revert was performed without explanation, with a vague reason that it was not readable enough? Can you explain? J.Moondog (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It isn't strange at all; this is a Featured Article where the standard for writing is higher. Your edits introduced arbitrary paragraph and section breaks which made it less readable. In another case, you added an unsourced one-sentence paragraph. Tkbrett (✉) 15:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Make that Eight Grammys

We can update that total to eight now that they picked up their latest for "Now and Then".

https://www.grammy.com/artists/beatles/16293 https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/03/entertainment/the-beatles-grammys-2025/index.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/grammys-2025-beatles-rolling-stones-win-b2691115.html https://www.theverge.com/news/604970/beatles-ai-restored-song-now-and-then-grammy-win 131.193.45.228 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we change the image

• Proposed
  Proposed
• 
  Current
• 
  Original

Similar to other bands' Wikipedia images, the image of the Beatles should not be a square of combined images. Rather, it should be an image showing all of them together. Therefore, I propose an image of the Beatles in 1963, which is posed and shows all of them in their most iconic look. This image, aside from being a better image than the current, represents the Beatles in the way everyone remembers, similarly to the current. They are all smiling and looking at the camera too, so it does not look as awkward as the current. Thoughts? Wcamp9 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm all for switching to the proposed image if the copyright concerns are cleared up. I also talk page messaged you on Commons as I can't find the image in the source link given. Miklogfeather (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed briefly a few times before; see here, here, here, and here. The problem usually is a copyright issue, if you are able to prove that this image is PD it shouldn't be a problem to change it (though it may require an RfC). Yeshivish613 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The proposed image has been nominated for deletion. The uploader indicated it was published in 2014, though the PD justification requires it was published in the US between 1930 and 1963. Tkbrett (✉) 08:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Categories

I vigorously reject the idea that the Beatles were a "rock" band. They were a "pop group". Some of their tracks were quite 'heavy', but that's not true of most of them. The first line of the article should be changed. 217.155.97.203 (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

they are a pop rock band Foxboy716 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The Beatles a Rock band?

The Wikipedia pages about The Beatles start out wrong. The Beatles were mostly a "Pop" band that played "Rock 'N'Roll" but eventually evolved into a quote "Rock" band that also played pop music.. It would be more accurate to describe them as a "Rock 'N' Roll" band or better yet a "Pop/Rock" band. This needs to be given some serious consideration for all Beatles Wikipedia pages that make the statement leaving the impression that The Beatles were exclusively a "Rock" band. The Beatles usually weren't Led Zeppelin. The Beatles had many chart topping pop hits also. Thank you for your consideration of what many I know deem an important flaw in Wikipedia pages concerning The Beatles.71.30.164.50 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia content depends on what reliable sources say, not your and my opinions. Oddly, it takes until the 8th use of the word, to find "rock" referenced, but there it is, in a mention of Grammy AWards - "The Beatles were the first rock band to land an Album of the Year nomination (for Help!) and win (for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band)." HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Billy Preston

Unlike the others on the list, Billy Preston was never in any way a member of the Beatles.98.13.3.175 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

If you mean "Temporary members" under The Beatles#Band members, you make a good point. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Years active

Can we add “2022” to the “years active” section? Considering both Paul and Ringo, the last two Beatles, made a song together that was released under The Beatles name? Hwaikdoviwbwwko (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer that we abolished "Years active" as a parameter for groups like the Beatles. It's close to meaningless. Let people read the text for details. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it should stay. It tell us at a glance the time they were all together playing music.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The Beatles as an active group ceased to exist in 1970. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with WWGB. They did not exist as a group after 1970. Anything recorded after that was merely piecing together solo work by Lennon with small embellishments by the other three. Those additional releases are just sampling. If McCartney, Harrison, and Starr intended to record as the Beatles they could have legally reformed, but they did not choose to do that. And regarding removing years active, that is a legitimate parameter that informs the reader and should remain. As sometimes happens, we lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is written for the reader, not the people who know enough to write the article. There are people who don't know such details. They know that the Beatles were a big hit and even know their music, but they don't know years active. Sundayclose (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

"There are people who don't know such details." Of course. That's why I wrote "Let people read the text for details." HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course they can read the text. But infoboxes are on virtually every band article, and they serve the purpose of giving the reader (again, we do this for the convenience of the reader) a quick overview. From that point the reader can decide whether to pursue the matter by reading more. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that sometimes I look at the infobox and decide that it has all the information I want. An "infobox also makes its data available to third party re-users (such as DBpedia) in a granular and machine-readable format". If we go on the assumption that the reader must always read the entire article, then we should simply eliminate infoboxes for all band articles. It does no harm to have years active in the infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not say "the reader must always read the entire article"! I'd like to se Infoboxes removed from lot of articles. They are often very misleading guides to what an article really says.

If you want to remove infoboxes "from a lot of articles", I must disagree. But thanks for your comments. I don't think we'll get much support to remove them. Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• “As far as I'm concerned, there won't be a Beatles reunion as long as John Lennon remains dead.” - George Harrison. So, let’s keep it as 1960-1970. Jusdafax (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Death dates in band members section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This section is not structured to give biographical information on the band members, so to include only their years of death - none of which took place during their membership of the band, almost all decades later - is purposeless and trivial in the context of the section. They need to be removed. U-Mos (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean in saying that the section is "not structured" to include deaths. There is no policy or guideline forbidding it and it's included in other band articles. As for "none of which took place during their membership in the band", despite not officially being together as a band, the members continued to create or modify recordings, such as Free as a Bird and Now and Then. Including this very brief information does no harm. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with including that information. It has become standard for band articles to include death years for deceased members. Miklogfeather (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

"Becoming standard" isn't a good reason. Why would you include death years if not birth years? Why include this one fact about a member's wider life and nothing else? It's stylistically abhorrent and serves zero useful purpose. U-Mos (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

When their life ended is a significant fact which impacts a musical act's legacy. I think denoting living former members as opposed to deceased members is an important difference and covering it is the useful purpose that the notes serve. I don't see how it's stylistically abhorrent to include either. The deaths of Lennon and Harrison are mentioned in the article and the lead section too, but not their births. Miklogfeather (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "becoming standard" is more than good enough if there's no policy or guideline forbidding it. Death years are more important than birth year because they were not part of the band or the band's music in their birth year. "Abhorrent and serves no useful purpose" is hyperbole and refuted by the points made in this discussion. Hyperbole and repeating the same argument do not create consensus. And right now, with three editors who wish to retain the information, the consensus is to keep it. Unless other editors express opposition, that's the way it will be. Sundayclose (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I am familiar with the notion of consensus, and that it matters even without a coherent argument being made along with it, as in this case. U-Mos (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

More hyperbole, and you're welcome. Sundayclose (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2025

please Change Fifteen-year-old Paul McCartney met Lennon on 6 July 1957 to in July 1957 The Quarrymen performed at a local church where a friend of Paul McCartney saw the Quarrymen perform.Being impressed by the preformance he arranged a meeting between the two.Paul performed a couple of songs and impressed John. A few weeks later, John invited Paul to join The Quarrymen. Paul agreed, and their musical partnership began. TheBeatlesWhooo (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see a reason for this change. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 19:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

We'd also need a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

credit to non-Beatles

'Preston received label billing on the "Get Back" single – the only musician ever to receive that acknowledgment on an official Beatles release' is false I think . see the credit given to Alan Civil on revolver ( for no one) Saghedvar (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Saghedvar:  Not done: Please provide a reliable source. Note that the current content is cited to a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

For No One was not released as a single with a "The Beatles with Alan Civil" credit. That is what the article means by "label billing." Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is "Past Masters" considered the Beatles' last major release? It's just a compilation album, like any other....

I feel like even the "Anthology" series or "1" would work better than "Past Masters", but this one compilation album is still placed next to stuff like "Abbey Road" and "Beatles For Sale". How come?

Makes me curious.... Barcodc (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not " just a compilation album like any other." Past Masters is different from the Anthology series and 1 because the whole point of it was to include everything the Beatles officially released while they were active that wasn't available on one of their albums. Thus it has been regarded as part of the "core catalogue" ever since the Beatles' music was issued on CD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! Barcodc (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Past masters was never released on vinyl while the Beatles were together. A lot of those songs were also available on the red and blue album. It shouldn’t be considered part of their core catalogue. Besides, the cd era has been over for sometime and the main delivery service for music is streaming and downloads.

those songs on past masters were all released as singles on vinyl. Back in the 60s it was common for artists to release songs that were only available on singles. That way it would lead to more record sales, fans buying both the singles and LPs.

core catalogue implies the original format the songs were released as packaged by the Beatles themselves. Past masters was put together by the record company not the Beatles. The core catalogue is just that, the core catalogue of please me through let it be along with their singles releases.

magical mystery tour should also only be counted as an EP which was how it was originally released and intended. It was only released as a LP in America with older singles thrown on it from the peppers era like strawberry fields. It was a cash grab essentially and LPs cost more.

in essence, it is wrong to list past masters as core catelogue. Already people have been listening to those songs either through single releases, other greatest hits packages, or even on the album the singles were a part of. Apple recently remastered the LPs with the singles included eg white album included hey Jude, peppers included strawberry fields and penny lane. ~2026-81016-2 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Core does not imply "original format the songs were released as packaged by the Beatles themselves"; that's your arbitrary criterion. "Release" is not restricted to vinyl. A release can be in CD format. "Cash grab" also has no relevance; all albums are intended to make money. "Put together by the record company not the Beatles" is not a valid argument; nothing gets released without permission of the Beatles. And the fact that some of "Past Masters" was released earlier does not negate that fact that Past Masters is the final release because it contains material that was never released on an album. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. Past Masters came about during the remastering of the band's catalogue on CD in the 1980s. Up til that point, all the non-album singles failed to receive an album release in the UK, so PM collected all of them onto one package to compensate thereby having the entire catalogue purchasable on one medium. Henceforth, PM is a core catalogue release. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)