Talk:A Collection of Beatles Oldies

Untitled
Availability beyond the UK While this album was unavailable it was not only available in the UK.

I am in possession of a Mexican pressing of the record from the late 1960s. This album apparently was available in Los Estados de Mexico, but not the EEUU. Dogru144 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Same here - an Israeli pressing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.159.193 (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It also came out in Denmark, Danish pressing. In 1966, I suppose; I'm not an expert but I own a copy - and have owned another - with label and cover like the other original 1960's Parlophone LP's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.111.56.234 (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Cover
Who designed the cover to the album? The style looks remarkably like that of Yellow Submarine released two years later, a style that would later be associated mainly with Peter Max as "that typical 60s style", however Max contended he'd only been influenced by the art of Yellow Submarine. So who did this album cover two years before Yellow Submarine was even released? --79.193.50.150 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(That's the MOVIE Yellow Submarine. The song of that name had already been on a single and the Revolver album in 1966.)

And how about including the photo of the Beatles which appeared on the rear of the cover? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd comment on "She Loves You"
In discussing the inclusion of "She Loves You", the article now states, "The song is complete on both the first pressing mono and stereo issues, the Fame budget label reissue from the 1980s, and the re-sequenced prerecorded cassette." Was the song ever not complete on the album? The statement certainly implies as much, but never actually comes right out and says so. 73.174.36.17 (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Tracklist width
Before I begin, yes, this is a stupidly unnecessary thing to argue about. I know. But I just wanted to comment on it as it is a good example of an unnecessary revert (WP:BADREVERT). I'm only discussing it here as it seems I'm not allowed to challenge a revert otherwise which isn't exactly the three-revert-rule (WP:3RR) but I'll go with it.

The width of the tracklist on this page is set to 60%, for some odd reason. When I first saw it, I thought there was a bug in the html that was causing it, and quickly went to fix it. However, I quickly found it was actually a manual setting that had been there since the template was put in place. This (as I later learned) was apparently the case because of this discussion, which occurred 8 years after the template was added. In this particular discussion, some argued that the tracklist template makes it harder to read values such as the duration, due to the distance between the name and the duration. However, not only is a discussion not a policy on Wikipedia (WP:STANDING), it should not be used as an argument in a situation like this (WP:DISCUSSED). I personally feel that the edition of white/grey bars for each track makes it fine to read, but that is an opinion, not a fact.

My edit was reverted as a result of this discussion. I believe this is unfair, but of course, as the rules above show, opinions do not rule the roost on Wikipedia. Despite this, I feel the reversion was unjustified, and goes against WP:BADREVERT, which states that "even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit". This is most certainly an area with a differing opinion, and considering the user who reverted my edit took part in the discussion they cited, and agreed that the tracklist template makes it harder to read, it seems clear which side of the debate they are on.

They also cited WP:OTHERSTUFF as a reason for the revert, but I don't think that rule applies here, as that is about article deletion, not edits to articles. The rule they were searching for more likely seems to be the similarly named WP:OTHERCONTENT, which discusses the fact that using other pages as examples of "how things should be", as I did, is not how things should be done on Wikipedia. I absolutely agree that yes, that argument does not work under that rule. But, the rule itself also says on the contrary that "articles that have been through some form of quality review...are often a more compelling point of comparison if the article has remained current with updates in policy." So, do featured album pages use this template in all of its 100% width? Yes! Be Here Now by Oasis, Remain in Light by Talking Heads, Thriller by Michael Jackson, Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd, Homework by Daft Punk (a personal favourite of mine), Achtung Baby by U2, and even the Beatles' own Sgt. Pepper, which this album was tiding over the Beatlemania kids for, just to name a few. It's clear that this is normal, and not a reason for reverting, especially under WP:BADREVERT.

Lastly, I do want to affirm that I know how ludicrously tiny of a detail this is to make a fuss over, but that's what makes it something to fuss over. The fact that such a tiny detail was reverted because it "was fine before". WP:DOREVERT says that something should only be reverted if it clearly makes something worse, and an opinionated topic that a few people talked about two years ago doesn't sound clear to me. The fact that this was reverted is going against Wikipedia's bias for change (WP:BADREVERT again), by forcing what was previously there as what "it should be", and reverting changes that do nothing for no apparent reason apart from a discussion thread, which as I mentioned, is not a guideline (WP:STANDING again too). It's a small detail, but the fact that it is small and means nothing shows the issue. Yes, you could absolutely take this as me just being a whiny so and so, and I understand that, but there are rules for a reason, and it feels a bit defeating when despite them, you're made redundant (WP:ENCOURAGE, just as one last policy). Tedster41 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)