This Beatles-related page is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles
Other :Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here.
This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?
Image for "Best of British"
while the text, quoted beow, states that the English pub came second in this vote, the accompanying photo is one of Elizabeth II who, according to the caption, "came second" - I don't know if it's the article or caption that's wrong, but the inconsistency is obvious:
"In second place - after The Beatles - came the local English public house - 32% - which was followed by the British countryside - 27%. Shakespeare was named as the "Best of British" by only 13 per cent." MickO'Bants20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic value
Is this encyclopedic? WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This might be better suited for something on Wikia, instead of an encyclopedia. In the first place, the fact that this can never go beyond a bullet-point list already indicates this probably can't be encyclopedic - an encyclopaedia article is written in prose. On the plus side, though, I suppose we could bend the rules, if only to get rid of all that annoying trivia on Beatles-related articles. Johnleemk | Talk17:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only motivation. I consider it a sandbox, and certainly won't have it on my watchlist. If the article only lasts a couple of months and gets AFD'd, well, at least for that period of time we can ease the pressure on the main article. That said, this is only a stub, and some other trivia articles not only exist but have survived AFD (John Lennon trivia). --kingboyk17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Free as a bird
I have added a "Free as a Bird" section on the Trivia page. I have listed as many song titles as I can think of, but I’m sure I missed some. Please feel free to contribute, when you want to while away the hours…
It is definitely not listed as a bullet-point piece, but as an explanation of the content. I feel that by doing so, it gives some credit to the wonderful job the film-makers did in compiling the shots for the video. It can further expanded with prose, should you so wish... andreasegde12:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no bullet points (apart fron The Rutles listing the band members). There are short pieces, but they need to be expanded. Please help. andreasegde12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to assess this article, which I will do most happily (but not right now as it's a long article and I don't have time). At first glance (on this visit) I wonder if perhaps it's misnamed now? Anyway, it seems to be a cleverly constructed article and a decent read, not at all what I expected when I first moved some trivia over to here from the main article :) I'll be back later today or by the end of the week to give it a cleanup and a rating (almost certainly it will be B-class, with GA class a realistic prospect - but to get GA the article has to be nominated first. We can discuss that when I come back, if I think it has a decent shot at it). --kingboyk10:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To trivia or not to trivia?
I think it should still be called trivia, because it is not stuff that could be put into The Beatles article (as it would make it horrendously long) and it connects The Beatles with lots of other articles, which people would probably not delve into without the links on this page. It also sets a standard for other trivia articles. There you go, I´ve said my piece... andreasegde10:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the faeces has hit the fan. I now think that Kingboyk was right about changing the name of the article, because the word trivia seems to upset a lot of people. I´m really sorry that this is so. There is even a Wikipedia article called trivia which deals with the subject, and has lots of bullet point lists, as well as linking to plenty of other pages that have trivia pages, so I am deeply confused as to why this page should be singled out.
I'm going to keep on suggesting Miscellenea as a title until somebody gives me a good reason why it is not suitable. It means much the same as Trivia, but has many more vowels, consonents and a better pedigree. Trivia could be kept as a redirect. Seriously, it may be that other articles including the term "trivia" should be amended - so that articles are not nominated merely by inference from the title.LessHeard vanU12:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bump. You need to think of a new name, or split this out into several new articles otherwise you'll get hassled for deletion every few months. There's too much nice material here for it to be deleted.
(That said, a solution would be to move this into WikiProject space, where the article rules don't apply... that might not be a bad idea; I recently did it with a KLF-related article that I didn't know what to do with). --kingboyk18:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John Lennon airport
I´m not sure if it should be in. If I put it into "John Lennon", would it look out of place? Answers on a postcard please, to Blue Peter, BBC Broadcasting house.... andreasegde17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Playboy should be in, because it links to an early Beatles Playboy interview and one of the last John Lennon Playboy interviews, as well as a really good (mid-1980s) McCartney Playboy interview which deals with Lennon. andreasegde17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to myself again
I have been thinking that the articles could be separated and grouped together under headings like Politics, Music, TV, Film etc... What do you think, andreasegde? (Laugh...)
Providing you have more than 1 piece in each section it should work fine. If you have a few pieces that has no proper section whatever you do do not put them under a Trivia heading.LessHeard vanU20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1984 the famous Railway Series Books were turned into a famous TV series one Beatles band member done Thomas the tank engine & Friends and that is Ringo Starr he was a beatles band member ever since the 1960's Ringo Starr provide the voice and narration of the TV show. When the Thomas show was a sucess the episodes were brodcasted in many countries and translted into different languges such as Japan& Israel etc. And also Ringo Starr was in the Amercian Spin-off Shining Time Station but soon in 1991 Ringo finished Thomas and went back to his Music carrer and soon he was replaced by Michael Angelis."
Could be. I was being nice about an obviously young editor (or an old one? I hope not...) because I was delighted at his/her first attempts at editing. We all started somewhere. I wasn´t being sarcastic, or biting newcomers; I thought it was really sweet, (though obviously it should have been on Ringo´s page.) More power to his/her editing elbow. andreasegde14:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have added date and location, but am not sure about the facts. I know they have released a [brilliant] cover version of "Walrus" in 1994 as a b-side to "Cigarettes & Alcohol" and Noel Gallagher recorded a version of "Come together" with The Smokin' Mojo Filters in 1995. A cover of "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" was released as a b-side to the japenese version of the Some Might Say single and bootleg copies of that song and "Help" do exist recorded live on acoustic guitar as sung by Noel. They also ocassionally end the song "Whatever" with the lyrics to "Octopus' Garden". However, so far as I know, only the "Whatever" section of "OG" was performed at the "Unplugged" session. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I will add the above info to the Oasis covers section at some stage, but I have seen that performance (albeit in a possibly editied capacity) and didn't see any Beatles songs.(That was Crestville, that it was!)
Not sure about this being in without a citation. If we put in every musician that loved The Beatles it would be longer than my arm. andreasegde11:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have just checked out the link for Cobain on the page and it says nothing about The Beatles, or the writing of/influence for "About a Girl". It´s gone. andreasegde09:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I returned the Cobain info and added more (with references); this has been heavily documented, however, I think the only false statement here was:
"he didn't want to overdubs and producer Butch Vig would just remind him that John Lennon used overdubs and it worked"
Nice one. It´s a definite KEEP now. Good work on "fattening it up" and putting citations in. They used to play "Julia"? Interesting. andreasegde10:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a "B article"
Yes, that´s exactly right, because it needs more references from books than Internet references, BUT... it´s not realistic to find quotes from books, because most of the stuff here has never been in a book. --212.241.67.9822:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Last Meeting
There is a last photo of Lennon and McCartney, but what about a last meeting? I know McCartney made attempts to visit Lennon at the Dakota; sometimes he was let in, other times Yoko turned him away. Does anybody know more?
Well, whoever you are, I agree. John once said (to McCartney), "It´s not like the old days, y´know - ya can´t just turn up when you want." Anybody got any references? --andreasegde21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The following day, April 25, 1976, McCartney reportedly showed up unannounced at Lennon's apartment with a guitar. Lennon was busy and/or annoyed and turned him away. This was the last known meeting between Paul McCartney and John Lennon." From the Paul McCartney page on Wikipedia. I don´t believe it though. I think they met later. --andreasegde09:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second AfD should be noted at the top of this page, like the first one was, especially as the concensus was KEEP. It would have been helpful when the current AfD was launched. LessHeard vanU22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOst of this information should be split out into the specificly relevant articles, like Yellow Submarine for the information about that, or the songs for information about inspiration, etc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is only a page to provide links to other pages. Think of it as a summary page for other pages, or a short introduction. Putting everything into other pages would them too long. How is a young editor/reader supposed to find all the numerous links to The Beatles without this page to guide them? --andreasegde19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Your argument is overwhelming, Socrates. I salute your devastating logic. But I do still have a hard time imagining an editor so stupid that they can't work out categories and links and can't read the article on The Beatles, and need a whole other article to tell them how to find out about the Beatles. 81.179.150.1623:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not wholly about The Beatles, but about the people they had dealings with. How would anyone know that Rolf Harris recorded a song with The Beatles? Joe Orton (respected British playwright) wrote a screenplay for them, Jeffrey Archer (well-known and disgraced ex-politician) used them to line his own pocket, The National Trust, or Imelda Marcos? How would they find The Beatles reciting Shakespeare on TV? (That alone is worthy, even though some say it is trivial). All of these subjects would have no place on The Beatles page, as it would clutter it up.
Does every article on X have a corresponding 'X trivia' article? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. You talk as if this page provides some vital service to poor lost readers who are thinking "Where can I find out about what the Beatles had to do with Jeffrey Archer?". How would anyone know that Rolf Harris recorded with them? Oh, I don't know, maybe they'd read his article? How would anyone know that the National Trust bought Lennon's house? Could they maybe find that in the NT article? Crazy idea but it might just work. An arbitrary assemblage of trivia (aka an indiscriminate collection of information is not really what an encyclopaedia is about, you know, and you might feel that the layout of the freckles on each Beatle's arse would be worth talking about under a heading called 'Freckles', but all but the most ardent of Beatles fans would prefer it if there was just an excellent article about the Beatles and not some messy 'trivia' article looking amateurish and unencyclopaedic as well. 81.179.150.1608:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything immediately above was argued at AfD only a week or so ago, including WP:NOT. The arguements were rebutted. The consensus was to keep (as was the case when it was previously taken to AfD late last year). All comments are welcome, including criticism. The inability to recognise consensus, however, and to keep returning to the same complaints borders on uncivil.
If an editor can find suitable homes for all the information contained herein, without overloading already large Beatles Project articles and where a student of the Beatles can readily find them, then do so. Then this article can be removed as being superflous. Until then, this article remains as a resource for notable Beatles related material. LessHeard vanU13:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncivil? Nothing I've said is uncivil in the slightest. This article is not a resource, it's an arbitrary mess and provides no service that isn't already provided by actual articles, categories and links. All you Beatles fanboys who edit this article should listen to someone who's just a reader, and wants you to make The Beatles great instead of wasting your time collecting all this stuff that's so tangential it's ridiculous. Come on, why do you need a mini-biography of Imelda Marcos? She moved to Palo, Leyte—about 10 kilometers from Tacloban—when she was seven years old. She is known as the "Steel Butterfly", and remains a very controversial figure in her home country. She is renowned for her excessively large collection of shoes, and is reported to own more than 1,000 pairs. - this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Beatles. 81.179.150.1620:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncivil as in not respecting the results of AfD's which had addressed the very points you insist in re-raising. Civility is not limited to style of language used, but also to its content and purpose. You are within your rights to disagree with the consensus, and you are free to edit this article to make it better, but you are treating some editors with a hint of contempt; "fanboys" could be considered a perjorative term.
That is not to say that you are incorrect as regards parts of the Imelda Marcos example. Fine. Prune it if you want. I may anyway, now that you have brought it to my attention. What is notable that it was a personal snub to the wife of the Phillipine President (de facto dictator) that caused an incident. This fact would have undue influence within any of the related articles (and would add to the already too great length of the Beatles) if placed there. Therefore, until there is an article regarding the world tour covering this event, this is the appropriate place for it to reside.LessHeard vanU21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could try the edit history... Before boiling up the tar I think you might have a look at the license for each photo. If it is free use then you are perfectly within your rights to boil the individual, if it is fair use then you may have a problem justifying its use outside of the article directly relating to same (but I do have a bit of road that needs metalling, so don't let the tar get cold.) LessHeard vanU21:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to thank 81.178.208.69, because he is the only user who disagrees with this page that actually leaves a comment. If you think this page is a waste of time, then it would be civil to talk about it, would it not? andreasegde20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about re-naming
Typical - just bloody typical. Everyone and his dog has something to say about deleting this article, but when it comes to the crunch, nobody can be bothered to add anything regarding the change of name. Sod the lot of you. (I allowed myself to write this, being absolutely sure that no-one will read it...) andreasegde01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You KNOW that I want it called Miscellanea! I've only mentioned it in three AfD's (One of which was on an article about whelk rustling, it needed a humour break from the very nasty flame war that was going on.)!! LessHeard vanU14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful - some feedback! I don't know how to change it, but ANYTHING is better that Trivia. CHANGE IT, or tell me how to do it... please.... andreasegde18:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about calling it, "I didn't sign in so who gives a flying fu*k?" Can you think of a new sentence, instead of parroting "Indiscriminate collection of information"? Who's a "pretty Polly" then? andreasegde21:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our fancruft wan*k (as you choose to call it) has already been written, so the deed is done. It has also survived two reviews in six months. We stand by it, which is why we have user names and sign in. You don't, of course. I wonder why not? andreasegde10:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cos I'm just a reader, not an editor, maybe? Are you writing all this for the world at large or just for your Beatles-fan mates?
I really like that guy who didn't sign in. He was really friendly and didn't make me seeth with rage at all. I wonder if he'd like to be my friend and come round to my house for a party with cakes and baloons.--Crestville17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of font, they are completely different characters. If you search using the normal character, you will not get here. Look in the URL address bar of your browser, and you should see one as %E2%80%99, the other as %27. Again, no big deal. Pomte22:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
