Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles

WikiProject The Beatles

General information Main project page talk Project log talk Style talk Tasks To do list talk Red links talk Missing articles talk Assessments talk Outreach Outreach talk Newsletter talk The Beatles history talk Tools and info COTM talk Categories talk Newsletter talk Peer review talk Handy infoboxes Infobox musical artist talk Infobox Person talk Infobox Album talk Infobox Single talk Project templates Project banner talk Invite user talk Userbox talk Userbox 2 talk Article navbox talk Singles navbox talk Barnstar talk

Plea for FAC comments

I submitted John's first book, In His Own Write, as a Featured Article Candidate two weeks ago, but I haven't received any comments. I'm posting here in the hopes that someone is interested in providing input, but hadn't noticed it. I'd rather the submission fail outright than be archived due to a lack of attention. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 19:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett Have you reached out to any of the regular FAC commentators yet? I'd do that first. I could provide some feedback but I feel I wouldn't be much of a big help due to my unfamiliarity with articles centered on books. JG66 would you be able to assist? – zmbro _(talk) 17:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Zmbro, I looked at the Beatles WikiProject's FAs and saw that the users that originally submitted them have all since retired or gone inactive (Johnleemk, PL290, GabeMc and Evanh2008), so I thought I'd post here instead. I had some help from a prodigious editor during the GA review, but she did recommend that people more familiar with the band comment during the FAC since they'll be more familiar with the literature cited in the article. Tkbrett (✉) 18:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Tkbrett That makes sense, but the main issue with that is that most Beatles editors have long since retired, like you said. I've noticed most being active around 2008–2010 (when their catalog was remastered), but since then, especially in recent years, I've only pinpointed JG66, myself, and now you as the editors who work on Beatles stuff the most (and myself I've primarily been doing Bowie for a couple years now). So that's probably why it'd be very beneficial to reach out to regular FAC commentators for more assistance. Even if they can't help with the Beatles-related bits, they should be able to help out in terms of MOS, grammar, content, etc. I'll look at it tonight but that's what I'd personally recommend. – zmbro _(talk) 18:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll see if anyone else is willing to look it over. I'd appreciate that a lot! Thanks Zmbro, you've been a big help as of late. Tkbrett (✉) 21:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I might be able to take a look – it looks like a mammoth article, though, so I'm not sure I'll have the stamina. Wish that Evanh2008 was still around – effortlessly imaginative and collaborative, such a gent too. JG66 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, JG66, I always greatly appreciate your keen eye. This one definitely ballooned on me; I expected there would be little to say, since most fans I meet are unaware that John did any writing at all. Excluding zmbro, you're unfortunately now stuck with dunces who make edits like this (this one still keeps me up at night). Tkbrett (✉) 15:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yoko Ono

Yoko Ono, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aircorn (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Project clean-up

Hey all. I'm going to work on cleaning up the project page. A lot of it is incredibly outdated (i.e. most "Active participants" are long retired). I'm fully aware this project has clearly lost a lot of steam in the past 10 years, but it's still time to do some fixing. Just wanted to let everyone know. – zmbro _(talk) 19:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The_Palace_of_the_King_of_the_Birds

This article was created some time ago for an unreleased Beatles instrumental. However note that here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7PjLtnO_bE - mentions the "... title was made up by me for this video, just for fun. ... The title of the original track was The Castle of The King of Bird, but to be honest it could be a retcon from later, when Paul was writing music for Rupert the bear."

Should the article stay ? If so, what name should it have ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should definitely bin it. With just Beatles Bible and the YouTube clip, the sources are lousy. And given the depth of coverage given to the Let It Be tapes (books by Sulpy & Schweighardt, John Winn, Richie Unterberger, Bruce Spizer, etc), if the song's so significant, it would be covered there. Perhaps Madinger & Easter's book on the Beatles' solo careers might mention it because of the Rupert Bear thing, but even then, I can't see it merits an article on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll nominate it for deletion. – zmbro _(talk) 14:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

In discussing the Rupert the Bear soundtrack demo session, Madinger & Easter mention it only in passing: "Many of the musical themes heard here had been around for a while. ... 'The Palace of the King of the Birds' (as announced in Paul's narration) appeared as early as the January 1969 Get Back / Let It Be sessions." (Madinger & Easter 2018, p. 239) Despite this, Sulpy and Schweighardt don't mention it at all. I can't find anything else, so I agree that it ought to be Deleted. Tkbrett (✉) 14:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That claim by the YouTuber that he made up the title for the video is untrue, as the title appears in Richie Unterberger's book Unreleased Beatles, which was published in 2006, six years before the video was uploaded. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

AfD nomination for Lizzie Bravo and Gayleen Pease

Editors might wish to participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Bravo and Gayleen Pease. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Samples as part of lead infoboxes

I have recently placed some audio samples from their respective infoboxes to their respective related sections. I don't see how audio samples are suitable as part of lead sections, let alone top infoboxes. Furthermore, I think samples should be used in context to illustrate critical commentary, especially if deleting them would hamper such understandings. There may be many other articles using samples as part of infoboxes. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Madinger and Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You

During the FAC process for "Face", I found some info regarding Chip Madinger and Mark Easter's book, Eight Arms to Hold You. Since so many pages use it as a source, it seemed worth discussing here rather than at every specific page. Regarding its publisher, 44.1 Productions in 2000 and Open Your Books in 2018, I noticed that Madinger's LinkedIn states he was the owner of 44.1 Productions from 2000–2014 and has owned Open Your Books since 2015. Both publishers are based in Chesterfield, MO, which makes me think it was basically the same operation. From what I can tell, these publishers haven't published anything beyond Madinger & Easter's books (see 44.1 Productions on OpenLibrary, while Open Your Books doesn't have an entry), which I think makes both the 2000 and 2018 editions self-published sources. Thoughts? Tkbrett (✉) 13:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the details given here about the "remastered" second edition make it clear that it's self-published. WP:SELFPUB does say that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Has he ever had anything published elsewhere that we know of?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A WorldCat search shows Madinger wrote The 910's Guide to the Beatles' Outtakes with Doug Sulpy back in 1996, published by The 910 (Princeton Junction, NJ). On OpenLibrary, I can only find five books published by The 910, all of which are Sulpy books, which makes me nervous that it too is a self-publisher. I'm having a harder time finding info about Mark Easter on WorldCat since there seem to be a few people with the same name. Tkbrett (✉) 16:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Doug Sulpy's website makes it clear that The 910 is his own brand, so I think we can say Madinger has never been published in a reliable, independent publisher. I haven't found anything indicating Easter has either. In the book's benefit, historian Erin Torkelson Weber cited it once in her book, The Beatles and the Historians, using it help count how many interviews McCartney gave in a given period (pp. 87, 227n112, 245). She doesn't critique it or provide an analysis on its value as a source though, so I'm not sure how much this really helps. Tkbrett (✉) 14:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Eight Arms to Hold You came up in a 2020 discussion about the sources used in the "Something" song article (Talk:Something (Beatles song)/Archive 1#Comments about sources - several are not quality enough for FA). I think it's a great book, packed full of important details about the Beatles' solo careers. It's one of the few SP Beatles sources that I'd hold up as vital; anything by Bruce Spizer would be another, same with Alan Pollack's "Notes on" pieces (although, in the case of the latter, I'm not sure if one would call them SP since they've been republished at Soundscapes?). Madinger and Easter definitely qualify as experts in their field, because one sees their work cited in so many other books, and often complimented by other authors. It got to the point, in about 2013, when I kept coming across mentions of Eight Arms to Hold You, I thought, "Right, I'd better buy this book." (That was long before I bought anything by Mark Lewisohn.)

Perhaps that's not good enough for some FAC reviewers. In which case I'd say there's a very good reason for keeping some articles away from the Featured Article process. Do we want to ensure that articles on the Beatles' solo careers are factually correct and include important information on recording, or are we just out to collect accolades? (I mean, that's what's it's about, isn't it ...) JG66 (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too worried about the FAC commenters – they're good editors and generally much smarter than me (not saying much, I know ...), and that process is more a matter of needing to justify things to a higher standard than other articles. In this case, I removed the book as a source on my own initiative after noticing it was self-published, and as it doesn't really have much information on "Face" anyway, I didn't feel like putting in the effort to keep it as a source. I bring it up here though since I know how important it is to the many solo years articles, and I'd prefer to establish its worth so we can avoid needing to ditch it as a source. I hope it wouldn't come down to whether "we want to ensure that articles ... are factually correct", since a lot of editors would argue that it isn't worth it (WP:TRUTH).

Now, can we more conclusively establish that Madinger & Easter are experts in their field? One difficulty from both WP:SELFPUB and WP:USINGSPS is that neither of them have been published by reliable, independent publications, something I was surprised to see. I know Robert Rodriguez has spoken quite favourably of their book, similarly describing it as "vital", but is that enough? Tkbrett (✉) 00:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User box not showing

Hello. When I try to add the userbox for this WikiProject to my user page, it doesn’t show the userbox, it just shows the text that was supposed to create it.Speatle (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Speatle: Hi there! When adding the template to your user page, don't use the <code>...</code> and <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. The code tag makes text appear like this and the nowiki tag allows us to display code such as templates without Wikipedia acting upon that code. I took the liberty of adding the template to your user page for you. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Thanks. Speatle (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Get all the Beatles albums to at least GA?

Hi. I’ve noticed that out of all the Beatles albums, 7/12 are under GA status, most of them the pre-1966 ones. I’m not criticizing this project, I just think that they need more work. So I’ve decided to enlist your help in getting most of them to at least GA status. I have more Beatles books than I know what to do with, and I want to use them for this. So how about that?

P.S sorry if I sounded slightly arrogant there. Speatle (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey there Speatle. This project as a whole has really lost steam and there's not too many of us around anymore. But I agree with you I think all their main ones should be GA minimum. I know that JG66 has already mentioned taking care of RS and greatly expanded but MMT awhile ago (and maybe Help) but in terms of PPM, WTB, and AHDN those need lots of work. Which ones were you thinking of taking care of first? I know I could assist in getting reviews from newspapers.com or rock's backpages. I also own Lewisohn's Complete Recording Sessions but that'll only get so far. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I’m gonna do PPM first. Speatle (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Speatle Which books do you have? Tkbrett you think you could assist too? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Get Back, A Hard Day’s Write, both Some Fun Tonights, the books that come with the 50th anniversary box sets, Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, The Beatles Live, The Complete Beatles Chronicle, the revised Hunter Davies biography, The Beatles Diary Vol. 1 (with the solo years on ebook), the Bob Spitz biography, Revolution In The Head—and that’s only a few! Like I said, I have more than I know what to do with. Speatle (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I added some sources and fixed up the text a bit on PPM, although I still think it needs an overall change in tone. There’s a more citations needed template for the release history section, and I’m not sure where to find references for it. The only place that I can think of that would have information on the different releases would be something like Rate Your Music, but that’s definitely not a reliable source. Speatle (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I say ditch it entirely. I find no use for those sections. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed the section, as well as the one in WTB. There were a few citation needed I added, mind trying to find sources for those? Speatle (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll primarily be able to help out with reception. Don't have many Beatle books unfortunately. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any references for both citation neededs. Speatle (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you reckon we should put this in the to-do list? Maybe we’d get more help that way. Speatle (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I've certainly thought about it before, especially A Hard Day's Night, an album that really ought to have a superb article. The earlier-Beatles material is severely underwritten on the encyclopedia, which is why I've tried to focus on pre-Rubber Soul articles. The thing that's held me back from the album articles is knowing how much time and effort will need to go into them, along with the vast literature to contend with. I think once we get things going, that will help. PPM seems like a great place to start. Tkbrett (✉) 21:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see you’re on board. If all goes well, I’m hoping we’ll be done by Christmas. Speatle (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you reverted an edit adding a source for the liner notes. How is the source original research and how would you cite it? Speatle (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Er, you cited the album's liner notes to justify a claim about the album's liner notes. Maybe take a review of WP:OR, particularly WP:PRIMARY first. Tkbrett (✉) 11:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

How else could you do it? Speatle talk please ping me when replying to something I said 11:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Speatle, from WP:PRIMARY, as linked above: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." There are thousands of secondary sources about the band. Use those. Tkbrett (✉) 13:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tkbrett, unfortunately from the Beatles books I have, they don’t summarize the liner notes. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 14:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean there's at least one without a doubt. They're literally one of the most documented and written about bands in history so it's all about finding the right one. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if there is, it’s not in my possession. Maybe @Alexcalamaro can help, given that he stated he has a lot of Beatle books. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 20:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think in that case a primary source will be acceptable , as A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Anyway, I have added a citation to The Beatles Bible, a respectable source. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, now that that’s settled, we should probably get to finding RSes for the remaining two citation neededs. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there ! I was wondering that maybe we could setup some kind of "working calendar". Something like : April - PPM, May - AHDN, and so on. What do you think ?

I could also help, specially adding citations (I have a lot of books). Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan, although I think we should make it two months for each album just in case. If we finish working on an article before the two months is up, then that’s fine; we’ll just move on to the next one and rearrange the calendar to suit that. I also have a lot of books; which do you have? Speatle (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Fine. About my books, I have counted 43 Beatles related, in paper (I also have a lot of ebooks). If I have time, I'll try to list them in my user page (it must be easy to do that, using citoid and their ISBNs). Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: Please keep in mind, Beatles Bible is not reliable. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Welp, back to the drawing board. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 12:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd check out that Rolling Stone source I put on the talk page. That breaks the recording down hour by hour, which should be pretty helpful. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zmbro, that didn’t really provide much for the citation neededs. I think this book might provide a reference for the mixing citation needed, but I don’t have it, so I’m not sure. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Speatle, Jerry Hammack's books are published through CreateSpace, a self-publisher, so his books are not reliable sources (WP:SPS). Tkbrett (✉) 16:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough for citations. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 16:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Speatle I think you're main problem currently is that you're too focused on the tags to work on anything else. When I mentioned the Rolling Stone article I wasn't talking about for the tags, I meant for expanding itself. As Tk explained in his most recent edit (which I can't link atm due to mobile), the article in its current state is a mess. Just fixing the current tags alone will not make it a GA. As he stated, the entire article needs rewritten. I would try to do that, meaning start with a specific section, as trying to find sources for sentences we don't even know will be here in two months isn't helping anyone.

Like I said before, I know I'll be able to take care of latter day reception and rankings, but since you said you own a ton of books, why don't you start forming ideas in your sandbox or just follow TK's lead? IMO that's way more productive than what you're currently doing. If the entire thing was ready for GA and had tags it'd make sense, but since the whole thing needs a rewrite, asking for sources on current things isn't getting us anywhere. Hope that helps. If I came off as aggressive that was not my intention. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I’ve started working on a Songs section in my sandbox.

I feel bad that you and Tkbrett have been doing most of the work so far while I sit back and occasionally fix minor grievances. I’ll try to do more work from here on out. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m very surprised how difficult it is to write something for every song. I’ve mostly been giving a fun fact about each song and moving on to the next one, which I know definitely won’t fly for a GA. I may get to work on the expansion of the recording section and do the rest of the songs later. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, no problem about avoid Beatles Bible as a source. I thought it would be a RS following WP:USESPS, under the premise that "2.The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claim" (the author has published a book and the site is usually mentioned around the web). But of course, it is always better Lewinshon and the like. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not gonna be adding much today, as I’m recovering from a dental surgery. One thing I did do, though, is put our plans on the community bulletin board. I directed them to the talk page, so maybe we’ll get more help soon.Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Take care !! Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added a work schedule proposal at the nominations section. Feel free to change anything you want from the plan. My rationale has been to start to work in the B articles first as they are near to GA, and then AHDN as mentioned above, the rest for next year. Alexcalamaro (talk)

IMO we should try to get both PPM and WTB up to standard before next year in time for their 60th anniversaries (since those are first). We have over a year for each so it should be do-able (hopefully) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It sorta depends on how long it takes for us to be satisfied with our expansions, and there’s always the chance that the GAN won’t be successful first time. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 22:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point Zmbro, I have modified the dates so next album will be WTB. Also, as we go along we can adjust the plan. Alexcalamaro (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Also Rubber Soul could probably be removed as well given that JG66 is going to nominate it soon, and it will likely be a GA by the time we get to it. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

My plan was to try to get all the albums to GA before Christmas, take a short break, and then start going for FAs. Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 22:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Would the songs section still meet GA/FA criteria if there weren't separate subsections for each song, but rather just a sentence or two about each? Speatle (talk) please ping me when replying to something I said. 12:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Speatle Imo yes, mainly because there are multiple covers. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I mostly finished Side One, although I couldn’t think of anything for Ask Me Why. How do you reckon we could fit in the September and November 1962 sessions into the Recording section without disrupting the flow? Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 16:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Speatle Good question. I'm thinking we need a background section to discuss the build up into recording (maybe even have Pete Best's firing) and for recording, maybe some subsections for say "initial work" (i.e. the Sept and Nov stuff), "main recording" (for the entire 2/13 session), and "overdubs" for Martin's later work and possibly mixing. There should be enough info for all of that. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zmbro, good idea. I’ll get to work on that once I finish the Songs section. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 17:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you reckon the Background should start at the EMI contract signing or John meeting Paul? Personally I want to go with the former. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The EMI signing. We're not doing a full history of the quarrymen, just a simple build up that led to the album itself – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 16:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Any more updates on PPM? I'm done with retrospective reviews so I've mostly done all that I can do. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I’ve been feeling really demotivated lately. I’m worried that this was much too big of a project for a new user like me. I’ll try to work some more on the Background section in the next few days. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Speatle It's all good! I know it can sometimes feel overwhelming; I mean, I invested upwards of 300 in this and that alone. The important thing is to take it one step at a time. If you need any help feel free to ask here, the Teahouse, etc. Or just take a wikibreak! This site is a collaborative WIP so if you need assistance just ask :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think I’m so exhausted to go on a WikiBreak yet.

Switching to more light-hearted subjects, PPM seems to be C-Class now. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It most certainly is. If Rubber Soul is listed as B that in no way that makes PPM a B. Whoever classified it as that is mistaken. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine.

So given that the incomplete Songs section I wrote is completely inadequate right now for GA, I was wondering if we could salvage some text from this diff. It’s got a few inaccuracies (according to Lewisohn, ISHST was written in late October 1962 instead of September) and it’s probably not up to date with current MOS guidelines, but those can be easily fixed. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 18:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow. WP was a different place back then. I'm sure we could take some info from that but definitely not all. It primarily needs to match RS, Pepper and AR in terms of in-depth-ness; we don't want too much detail. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There isn’t even an album Infobox! Truly times have changed.

Another roadblock would be finding sources to match the info. They haven’t really made it easy for us to readd it, given that literally none of it’s cited. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 19:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m almost done with pre-cleanup work for the Songs section. All I have to do is rearrange the songs into their proper order and then the fun begins. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 15:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you intend to do recording on PPM? I just did the entire section for WTB (bout damn time fr) and intend to do the same for AHDN. If not I'll do that too. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I’ll do PPM and AHDN. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 12:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I started work on ISHST, but I have two things that I can’t figure out how to fix.

1. I need to figure out a segue to the “beauty queen” to “what I mean” sentence, as I feel that’s pretty important.
2. Does anyone have Illustrated Record by Carr and Tyler? I want to include their opinion about the song in the bullet point, but I don’t have the book.

Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 11:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A funny thing I noticed, this talk page is now around the size that PPM was before we started working on it. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Speatle, I have notice that you are working in the songs section. I could help you uploading audio bits of the songs. So later, we could add them to the article, the way it has been done in Rubber Soul album. Alexcalamaro (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alexcalamaro, I don’t think we should add clips for all of the songs, just the more important ones, e.g “Twist and Shout” and “Please Please Me”. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 13:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

please see WP:SAMPLE – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess that cuts it down to providing an example of John’s voice in “Twist And Shout”. Speatle (talk to me) please ping me when replying to something I said. 13:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)