Talk:History of The Beatles

Image copyright problem with File:Getbacksample.ogg
The image File:Getbacksample.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Strawberryfields.ogg
 * File:Iwanttoholdyourhandsample.ogg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

== what was the beatles oringinal name ?????

Splitting the article
The discussion about merging this article into The Beatles article has mutated into a discussion involving splitting this article into several articles involving the different stages into the history of The Beatles. The formation stage is already in place as the article about The Quarrymen which was the band John Lennon founded which evolved into The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I strongly support splitting History of The Beatles but not this way. Please see Talk:The_Beatles, where new information was recently added to give better visibility, showing that there is much straight duplication of text between History of The Beatles and The Beatles. I believe the two articles should first be merged, and certain detail then moved out to new sub-articles. This will temporarily increase the article size of The Beatles, but not by as much as might be imagined, and having it all in one place will allow a more balanced view of which parts of The Beatles should be split out to sub-articles (an exercise that's already needed due to its growing size). Please consider the merger proposal further in the light of the new information recently added there. It now gives a complete section list, which gives clear visibility of the current relationship between the two articles and of the sections affected by the merger, and gives a few possible examples of new sub-articles. PL290 (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - The above opponent is trying to have it both ways. If he supports merging the articles The Beatles and History of The Beatles, how would he deal with the excessive length of The Beatles article which inspired the creation of the separate History of The Beatles article in the first place? BTW, the disambig page is not needed.  Is there a split box with no mention of a disambig page? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Work in Progress.... Cutting to the heart of the matter, I believe that the History of The Beatles will be made redundant as soon as there are enough sub-pages that link to The Beatles' article headers. Without wishing to infuriate anyone, or cut them off at the pass, I have already started The Beatles in Hamburg, which will be a very detailed account of their time there (Lennon and the nuns will also be included). At the moment it is rough, as I only started it today, but I believe it will surpass the History of The Beatles in detailed information, and it will/should stand as a complete article by itself. There is a ton of info that is not in it yet, but there will be…
 * All there is to do is to use the same process for the other headers, and we will not only have the main Beatles’ article, but a wealth of info in the linked articles.--andreasegde (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot to do...--andreasegde (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cavern Club and Brian Epstein": This is definitely an article.
 * "Record contract and Beatlemania": This could be as long as the main article, as it would deal with their emergence.
 * "American releases" (and English/European). Not just a list, but with details.

New article titles may be an issue with the above examples. The Beatles need to be mentioned in all subsequent article titles. An example for the next one could be "History of The Beatles--Cavern Club and Brian Epstein". Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold the horses! I have just read this about this article, above: "This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale."--andreasegde (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Work in progress—response - The discussion at Talk:The_Beatles on the competing merger/split proposals has got rather bogged down. I know from comments on user talk pages that the split proposal was intended to be harmonious with the merger proposal and I respect the good intention behind that. There is I think underlying consensus for what both proposals are trying to achieve, namely the moving of Beatle detail from both The Beatles and History of The Beatles to some new articles and the retiring of History of The Beatles. At the end of the day it's not a huge deal how it's done. I would like to think that in the light of the points since made, those who indicated opposition to the merger will now perceive benefits and can now revise their response to one of support. If not, however, we must all fully respect that. If that is indeed the case we may need to abandon the merger/split proposals and continue the ad hoc moves already started towards that goal. If so, we should perhaps at least ensure that as each new article is created, the corresponding duplicate material is removed from both The Beatles and History of The Beatles, or else there will potentially be a need for subsequent edits of this material to be kept up to date in all three articles. PL290 (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)