Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 3

Linda
As I am not sexist, I have to disagree about not including Linda McCartney in Wings at the start of the 70s. Macca started Wings with her, and he had married her before then. The first Solo/and later, Wings was just her and Him, in Cavendish Avenue, so why is she ignored? So what if she was a shit keyboard player? She was in the duo/band. (Yoko reference again...)

I understand that his marriages can be included somewhere else, but we should put her in. I'm sure Macca would agree. Lennon would definitely have agreed (= Yoko).

P.S. I have put his early songwriting before The Beatles, because it belongs there. --andreasegde 17:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All web sources need the date they were last accessed, so if the link becomes dead it can possibly be retrieved using the Wayback Machine. LuciferMorgan 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, LuciferMorgan. I have often seen that, but I never fully understood why it was there. I will go through the citations and put them in. Thanks again. --andreasegde 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wayback Machine is on www.archive.org BTW, so if any links become dead please go there. LuciferMorgan 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, Linda has to be covered as a full member of Wings in the Wings section, and a brief mention of her involvement in Wings should be in the Linda section too. We don't judge her value as a member of the band, we just report it. (Although we can certainly report what critics have to say if anything juicy is found). --kingboyk 16:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hits? Proof?
A quote from the 1980's section;

"In 1981, McCartney disbanded Wings, and set about recording his next album with Beatles producer George Martin. The first result, 1982's Tug of War, was a major success. "Ebony and Ivory", recorded with soul legend Stevie Wonder, was a hit, and the album also included his eulogy to Lennon, "Here Today"."

To say an album was "a major success" isn't good enough, as it needs factual info to support - such info for "Tug of War" would be its Billboard chart position, its UK chart position, and critiques from music reviewers/historians (or McCartney/Beatles biographers). The same thing applies to the single "Ebony and Ivory" - you'll need factual info, such as chart positions, reviews, etc. LuciferMorgan 00:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good points. I've nothing that goes beyond the Wings Period at present. See what I can get hold of though. Thanks Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * AMG will have info on Billboard positions, so you could inline cite them from there. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well received? Proof?
Another quote, this time from "Classical music";

"In 1991, McCartney made his first complete foray into classical music, collaborating with Carl Davis to compose the quasi-autobiographical Liverpool Oratorio. This was received well in general, although many commented that the music lacked the complexity normally associated with the genre".


 * 1) The 2nd sentence is weasly, as you can't say "This was received well in general". To say it was generally well received you'll need 3 cites I'd say to back up the "generally bit" - it may be an idea to quote some comments here to back up the comments.


 * 1) The 2nd part of the sentence saying "the music lacked the complexity" etc. will need roughly 3 cites if one feels "many" commented upon this.

Make sure the comments you find are from reliable sources, and the more well known the sources the better. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your're right, LuciferMorgan, it's POV. I'll remove it when I get back. --andreasegde 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did it. (I just couldn't stop myself...) Good work spotting it. --andreasegde 16:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is on a roll...
This is the first time that I have felt genuinely excited about working on a page, because it is a shining example of co-operation. Are we gonna get an FA? If it goes on like this, it's a foregone conclusion. (Now - where's that other regal bloke....? :) --andreasegde 16:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have the Anthology CDs, I will work on that. There are lots of bits of information on there that are not repeated anywhere else. --andreasegde 16:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday
I'm really not sure about its position, and if it should be so long. Any comments? --andreasegde 16:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the position is wrong. It should also be cleaned up as there are some useless points. --jackdrew 18:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just cut it out. (It's mentioned elsewhere). --andreasegde 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no reason why that song should be mentioned in any great detail here. We should save the detail for the song's article. So, yes, agree once again :) --kingboyk 11:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

For possible inclusion...
Read this article - I think it's info could be useful in the subsection dealing with McCartney's business affairs. LuciferMorgan 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I will put it in. I'm frustrated at the moment, because I don't have the time... but I will have. --andreasegde 02:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

MPL
There's an empty subsection for MPL - is this related McCartney topic going to be discussed in the article or not? This should be decided and then worked upon, lest it be removed altogether. LuciferMorgan 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the stuff you got about his trademark should go in...--andreasegde 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just spotted it on my AOL homepage, so clicked on the article. We just need to generally research the topic - ie. when it was set up etc. LuciferMorgan


 * I put it in. It's from 'The Guardian', which is a reliable paper. --andreasegde 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should have a small summary section on MPL and McCartney's ownership of a large publishing catalogue, maybe one or two paragraphs maximum. The detail should be in the MPL article. --kingboyk 11:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfection
I wouldn't worry about it not flowing so freely at the moment, because we're only collecting information. We can polish it later. Let's do the basics first. --andreasegde 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That was my intent too, and it's how I work on big articles like this (see Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty, both are a mess like this, all 3 will be FA some day!). I think we fill it up with all the referenced info we can find, and then we trim out the excessive detail, beef up the related articles, and polish the prose. In other words, we lay the foundations first and do the decorating last :) --kingboyk 11:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you back. I noticed a few external citations in the article yesterday, so I 'in-lined' them. I now have to go through all the in-line citations and put dates in in, as I didn't do it before. (Bugger...) --andreasegde 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice site
It's a singles chart database: Every hit.com I linked it a few times, because if you link the page you found, it doesn't work. You have to type in the title every time, but it's better to choose the year of release, and then click search. --andreasegde 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, couldn't we have choosen someone with a shorter career? lol :) --andreasegde 17:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could be another 30 or 40 years of it still to come yet! --kingboyk 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Film
I took out the film section, and put 'Broad Street' in the 1980s, but I think I've shot myself in the foot, because there are lots of little references here and there that relate Him to film. It's a puzzler... Put them all together, or leave them? Hmmm... --andreasegde 08:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I don't feel that film is a particularly important medium to McCartney; it was more important to Ringo and George. Let's leave it, we can always rearrange later. --kingboyk 10:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sections
I think the business section is really nice now - it contains enough info to set the scene, with an invitation to click through to other articles to read more. Apple Corps and Northern Songs are decent enough articles, but if you find any more info on MPL Communications that article could really use beefing up.

Songwriting and musicianship: I think this needs to be expanded or merged in somewhere. It seems a bit out of place.

The main section I want to talk about is After The Beatles. I don't really like the section name and it also seems a bit overlong. Any ideas about what we can do with it? Do we want it standalone or do we want to merge it into the chronology? If standalone, can we think of a better name for the section? --kingboyk 10:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the name either (and I put it in!...doh!) I think it's good to leave it as a standalone, but who wants to have a title like, "The deaths of John and George, and another argument with Yoko"? (lol). I have no idea, either.


 * Glad you like the business section. I will look at the others you mentioned. --andreasegde 11:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Some stuff about his playing drums,guitar, the kitchen sink, etc. etc. could easily go in the musicianship bit. Working with Martin on the string scores... Piano in Cavendish Avenue - solos on Beatles recordings - harmonium - moog synth.... errr... --andreasegde 12:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bag o'Nails
I've wikilinked this in several articles. It gets enough mentions, I think, to be worthy of an article and is notable at the place where Paul and Linda first met. --kingboyk 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a link next to it to show where it was, and lots of people played there. It is worthy of an article, but it's hard to find much out. (I tried...)--andreasegde 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Jane Asher

 * It has a brief mention of Jane Asher and then it's all Linda. It looks like a snub for Jane.
 * I am quite sure I put in all the citations two weeks or so ago. Where did they all go?
 * If we have to put in page numbers with in-line citations the references list will be longer than the article. (Now 121 and counting...)I'll do it, if it's defintitely a 'must-do', but... --andreasegde 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should trim the stuff about meeting Linda, because it's fan-level detail. Funnily enough, I wrote that in a HTML comment as you were presumably writing this message :) Of course, the story we're telling is of a snub to Jane. Macca meets Linda, gets engaged to Jane, and then marries Linda... That said, if we can find more info on Paul's relationship with Jane (which I'm sure we will) we'll mention it. She was his companion during the Beatle years which makes her pretty important I reckon.
 * I haven't zapped any except for one which didn't contain the info it was citing. I have however added extra fact tags so we can cite everything (including stuff I know to be true).
 * Page numbers are good, but I wouldn't expect you to go back and find page numbers for the stuff you've already referenced. I'd settle for what we have but add page numbers from now on. Others might be more lenient or more strict, I dunno. What's your take on this, Lucifer Morgan? --kingboyk 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead (intro)
To avoid edit conflicts, I'm gonna put the lead here so we can tweak it. The lead should be a summary of Macca's career and should contain nothing which isn't in the body. It'll also be the basis of the text used when this article gets onto the front page :) --kingboyk 19:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What a bloody great idea.--andreasegde 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because this is such a long article, I think we should be looking at at least 3 or 4 substantial paragraphs of lead. --kingboyk 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Check the "Redundancy check" below. There's a contradiction here... Facts mentioned in the lead, strike them out when we've checked they're in the body too What up, bro?--andreasegde 11:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When we have a stable lead, I'll build a list in that talk section of the facts in the lead. We check they're mentioned in the body and strike em off the list. --kingboyk 12:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead (edit here)
Moved into Todo list so it doesn't get archived. --kingboyk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy check
Facts mentioned in the lead, strike them out when we've checked they're in the body too:
 * Landmine campaigns - need to be mentioned and the citations reused in the Activism section.

Danger, Will Robinson...
Who has put all that stuff in the George section? It's POV, anti-Macca, not cited at all, and makes me blood boil... It's not one of us, I'm sure. I'm gonna cut it, but someone have a look at it first. --andreasegde 12:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To-do list
I've added a load of jobs to the todo list near the top of the page. If you see anything else that needs doing please add it there, and we can use the todo list as our management centre for getting this article to FA. --kingboyk 13:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotations and citations for critical opinion
I've found that most of the Macca and Beatles albums already have weblinks to reviews (AMG, Rolling Stone etc) and these make for really rich pickings. A little critical commentary from professionals is always a good thing, so get following those external links folks! (Be careful with reference reuse, as I've already referenced a few of the reviews). --kingboyk 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC) PS I reckon we're gonna hit 200 references easily. I remember when The KLF got to 23, and we thought that was a lot... it now has ~100. Macca is way more celebrated than them and the sources are just overflowing! :)


 * I agree. LuciferMorgan 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, in the "to do" I found an online critical review of the 1984 McCartney film by Roger Ebert, a notable film critic who works for the Chicago-Sun Times. This is worth using briefly in this article, and used in more detail in the film's own page. Please use this review! Thanks. LuciferMorgan 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll use it, an Ebert review can't be refused! Thanks man. --kingboyk 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I have to say that I love this page, and all its occupants... (I am slightly drunk...) --andreasegde 23:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor George
I think the "Lennon & McCartney, post-Beatles" has good information now (before polishing) but where is George? Are there vandals at work? The whole section about the death of George has gone. --andreasegde 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No I zapped it. It just seemed to be amateurish and OTT, and we're gonna have to do a lot of trimming anyway because of the article size. I mean, this is an article on Paul not George. George died, Paul was a bit upset, Paul played at tribute concert, that's about it isn't it? I think we can mention that in the chronology. The relationship with John is a bit different as it's very well documented and they were a duo, Lennon/McCartney. If you don't agree you can reach into the history and bring the section back. That's wiki! :) --kingboyk 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The tribute concert information can be added in that specific article I feel. Like I said, there's gonna be a lot of content forking with Macca. (PS - I hope the two MPL links are worth something!) LuciferMorgan 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we'll mention it here, just not in the sort of detail it had before. George was the man AFAIC, but that doesn't mean I want Macca's article crufted up with stuff about him just for the sake of it :) I'm sure those links will be helpful, the others certainly were - keep em coming! --kingboyk 23:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm speechless.... (No I'm not...) Paul knew George well before John. They were both schoolfriends, and Paul held George's hand, shortly before he died. Macca said (TV interview) that George was like "his baby brother". No mention of George's death? Now I'm speechless... --andreasegde 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course we'll mention it but I don't think it needs a big section. This is an article on Paul.


 * Another alternative is to make a personal relationships section, and put in some more details about Macca's friendships with George and others (if he has any other friends?!). Then we don't have to dwell on death. George hardly gets mentioned until he dies... That would solve the Lennon section problem too perhaps.


 * Have a think about it, as I will overnight. Bring the section back if need be. Goodnight. --kingboyk 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. The should-be-obvious question is: if Lennon, Harrison and Ono get sections, why doesn't Ringo get one? I'm not jesting :) --kingboyk 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because Ringo is not dead. (Yoko got into a fight with Paul about John...) --andreasegde 00:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jane Asher isn't dead either, nor Heather McCartney. We have a debate on our hands I think. LuciferMorgan 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

(I've started a new line... sorry) I don't really understand what the problem is. I talked about George's death being omitted (I put it back). I would love to have a debate, but about what? Yours, Mr. Confused, --andreasegde 01:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Andreasegde's edited version
I like it. Exactly the kind of summary I was looking for. The question now is "do we move it to 2000s, and add mention of Lennon's death to 1980s?". I think yes. What do you think? --kingboyk 00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I edited George's section back to what it was (with a few cuts.)


 * I think the mention (as sad as it was/is) of John's death, and then George's, should be together. They were The Beatles, and they lived together (literally) for many years. Anyway:


 * We should be thinking about how much information we have, and how much we need. (LuciferMorgan's 'citations needed' are a good case in point, which should be addressed.)
 * There is a strong possibility that we could set a new standard for FA articles if/when we finish this one. We have a lot to do. --andreasegde 00:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Heather and Paul lived together for a few years too, and she's alive. So what about Ringo? LuciferMorgan 09:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Last night I had an idea about how to possibly integrate this info into the article more logically. I'll give it a go momentarily and report back. --kingboyk 10:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've started. Will be back in a few minutes to tweak and review, and then you folks can let rip. --kingboyk 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Notes and References
I'll see if I can take care of the "Notes" and "References" section. I've been busy of late so haven't been able to review this article much. Sorry everyone. LuciferMorgan 11:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I've noticed a major problem with the books that have been inline cited. You're supposed to inline cite specific page numbers, so where are they? When I did minor work on Iron Maiden I cited specific page numbers, all using the same book. This is how you're supposed to do it with books, not like this article has done. Just citing the book is too general. Whoever has this published material will have to trace all the page numbers should they want this article as an FA - Otherwise we can all wave bye bye to FA. LuciferMorgan 11:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that for now, I think Andreas is gonna take care of it (and has already started citing page numbers). If you could fix up the references from the other media that would be great - formatting as we discussed, and checking that each source is acceptable. --kingboyk 11:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Once Andreas takes care of the page numbers, I can work on the book media - it'll look much better also when I can go to work on it (when the page numbers are thrown in). LuciferMorgan 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone send me the accepted style of formatting page numbers, books etc? Name, title, :? commas, date (date) etc. etc,.. and so on. I'll copy it over to winword, so I won't get it wrong. Uhh, I do so love pedantry. :) --andreasegde 16:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where does Note 26 go? There's no weblink, no book info, no nothing. LuciferMorgan 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That happens when text gets shifted about and what was the first use of the reference isn't any more. If the text looks like it's in the right place now, just find the full reference and move it to the first usage. If the text is likely to be moved again don't worry about it for now. --kingboyk 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Page number formatting
Miles, Barry, “Many Years From Now”, p. 3. Is this OK? If not, just change it and I'll get to work. --andreasegde 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I think it should be just:
 * Miles, p3.
 * unless we might be using more books or articles by Miles (entirely possible since he compiled the "In Their Own Words" books if my memory serves....) Pass... Mr Morgan? --kingboyk 16:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm on much thought I give my thumbs up to this style. I was going to suggest using the date of publication, but that's worthless since books become reprinted. Only thing I want changed is a full stop replacing the comma after the surname. Other than that I'm happy. LuciferMorgan 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Miles. p3. - Righty-o, I'm on it. --andreasegde 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just thought - I'll leave the first Barry Miles ref in, but will erase the others as I go. --andreasegde 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: If three references about different subjects are on the same page, do I seperate them, or just repeat them as all being on page 4? "Mary worked", "Michael born", "Grandparents" etc... ?? (Uhh, pedantry, doesn't it make you go all weak inside?)andreasegde 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If they're in the same book and on the same page, reuse the reference, using ref name=.
 * If you're using one page to provide the detail for a whole paragraph you might be able to get away with passim (meaning something like "used liberally") provided there's nothing controversial in the text: Miles, p7, passim
 * For a range of page numbers use "pp": Miles, pp7-9.
 * --kingboyk 17:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In short, he means you repeat them as all being on page 4. LuciferMorgan 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

DVDs
Is there any mention of the Paul McCartney DVDs anywhere? There is a very detailed audio discography, but AFAIK nothing on the DVDs, which include important releases such as: Paul McCartney: Live at the Cavern Club, Standing Stone (containing the concert and a "making of" documentary), Live in Red Square and the forthcoming The Space Within Us. - Zakko 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, although there's so many Beatles-related articles it's hard to keep track - especially if they're not tagged with the WPBeatles banner or in correct categories.


 * I think DVD and video info belongs in the Paul McCartney discography, an article which is poorly laid out and in need of some TLC in my opinion. Perhaps we can get Steelbeard to fix it up? :) --kingboyk 16:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say albums and singles should have separate discography pages, especially given how long Macca's been around. LuciferMorgan 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope someone will create at least a brief summary of a few of the major DVDs - this is quite an important omission. Personally I'm not sure which ones should be mentioned, but the Live at the Cavern and Live in Red Square DVDs may be particularly significant. - Zakko 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, McCartney is a major artist so they should all be listed somewhere (probably not in this article though). We're tied up enough already with this so perhaps you could be bold and take care of it yourself? I'd personally put them into the discography, or you could start a new article. --kingboyk 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately my available time is probably going to be quite limited in the coming weeks, but I will make a start on the DVDs section, and hopefully someone will take it further. -Zakko 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Chronology
Can we just clear up a chronological issue - when exactly did Wings end? Do we have any citeable source for the exact date? Piecing the bits together from our articles I get this chronology:
 * Back to the Egg, last Wings album, released June 1979
 * Was the last Wings single "Getting Closer" (Aug 79), "Wonderful Christmastime" (Nov 79), or something else?
 * Dec 1979 - Concerts for the People of Kampuchea, last Wings show.
 * Jan 1980, McCartney busted as he enters Japan to begin a Wings tour. Tour cancelled.
 * McCartney II released in May 1980 whilst Wings are in limbo (any refs/citations for Wings being in limbo?)
 * So, what happened after this, if anything? We're saying Wings split in '81, which may well be true, but we don't explain the missing months. --kingboyk 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Books
Have you got other books Andreas, e.g. Philip Norman, Peter Brown, Mark Lewisohn? We oughtn't rely too much on just one author or we'll be writing "Barry Miles condensed McCartney bio". Of course I don't mean to stop you working through the books one at a time as you are already, in a nice and thorough fashion, I just wondered how extensive your library is :) --kingboyk 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got Spitz, Barry Miles (photos fell out a long time ago), Philip Norman (which has totally fallen to bits) Fenton Bresler (only Lennon), Hunter Davies, all the Anthology DVDs, and have access to a few more (such as The Unknown Paul McCartney) due to a Beatles fanatic that I know. (He’s a nice bloke really…) I will try and intersperse the others in, but there are only four or five that are really good, or so I believe. Maybe we could put a list of the good ones together for the talk page or Beatles category page? I would like to buy some more, if there are new ones about…. --andreasegde 19:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All my books are packed away, and I'm out of touch as to newer books, but I have (from memory): P Norman, pretty good; I have Love Me Do (one of the real oldies); the offial Paul bio (I think that's Miles?); Lewisohn's Recording Sessions and Chronicles (the first of which is essential); Revolution in the Head (very good for song analysis); George's I Me Mine; stacks of Lennon books... anyrode, your library is pretty damned good and will be plenty. I might be able to get Peter Brown from the local library (read it years ago, pretty good) and of course there's plenty on the web now too. --kingboyk 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Lewisohn is currently working on an enormous three volume biography of The Beatles that will conclude in 2016." (Wiki page on Lewisohn)I can't wait that long!! --andreasegde 19:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks great though! --kingboyk 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Miles' book only deals with Macca and The Beatles, but it does look at them from Macca's perspective, which is why I started using that one. I think there are about 25-30 references in it. After The Beatles is harder to get. Anyway - what do you mean "it looks great"? Have you got the first volume? Bugger...--andreasegde 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but I read the interview with Lewisohn and it looks like it will be an exciting work! --kingboyk 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation scheme
Page numbers aren't really a problem. I just have to look at the Index (on Asher for example) and it would take 15 mins. or so. As I'm beginning to perversely enjoy these in-line citations, I might like it :) So, what is your opinion, LuciferMorgan? --andreasegde 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My take is that all inline cited articles that have an identifiable author should begin with the authors name; eg. if it was me;

Morgan, Anthony. insert link, etc. etc. LuciferMorgan 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PS - Does anyone want me to go over these inline cites? Check the inline cites to Iron Maiden for a rough idea of how I would do them. LuciferMorgan 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We do need a standardised scheme and if somebody could clean them up to match the scheme that would be cool. I like this approach:

==References==
 * Lewisohn, Mark, The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, Penguin Books (London), 1999, ISBN 123456789
 * 1) Lewisohn, p12
 * 2) Some author surname, firstname, "Name of newspaper article", The Times (London), p10 (link)

Although for #2 I'm quite happy with this as an alternative:

2. Some author surname, firstname, "Name of newspaper article", The Times (London), p10


 * Thoughts? --kingboyk 12:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My proposed scheme is this (same as the Iron Maiden scheme, so please check for a better idea of what I'm on about!);


 * Surname, forename. "Article/Chapter Name", Publication Date, Name of Publication/Website (and then "Reported by" if on a secondary site; date last accessed.


 * Up to you lot what you choose, but this is the one I prefer. LuciferMorgan 15:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not very different from mine (as used in The KLF). What about URLs? Hmm... kinda inline. Well, I prefer my scheme cos that allows wikilinking the publication (blue link publ.==more likely to be reliable?) but frankly I'm really not too bothered as long as we get consistency. So, if you're gonna do the cleaning you go with your scheme! (If I have to do it, I'll go with mine, but I hope you're volunteering ;)). --kingboyk 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm volunteering. One thing... you can wikilink with my style too if you wish. Soon as you and Andreas give the thumbs up to my style (I'll add wikilinks to the publications for you), I'll begin. LuciferMorgan 18:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Macca-style thumbs aloft from me, Mr Morgan! --kingboyk 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need my permission at all, LuciferMorgan. You go right ahead and we'll all follow your lead. --andreasegde 23:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound ungrateful (but probably do!), but I don't much like the first example of the new reference formatting scheme. First, I think newspaper article titles should not be italicised. Second, I'd prefer it if either the title or a "(link)" at the end be externally hyperlinked rather than the source name, so that the source name can be internally wikilinked (BBC Online in this case, which is distinct from BBC News). Finally, the dates need to be wikified so that they display correctly internationally (3 November 2006). --kingboyk 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, feel free to debate upon a reference formatting scheme that is suitable and revert my edits. LuciferMorgan 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just changed them to your suggested citation style. Does this make you happier about the citations now? LuciferMorgan 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks mate, but I wikilinked the article date too on one of them. I wonder if I've been doing my date links the wrong way round, or doesn't it matter? I've been doing 3 November but I see from your edits that that's a redirect to November 3. Hmm.


 * Do you think we need citations in the lead? I'm generally of the opinion that, since everything in the lead must be in the body, the lead doesn't need to be cited (as indeed is the case with The KLF I think). --kingboyk 20:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --andreasegde 22:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So these citations, what's the new style we have agreed on? How do we do the dates in particular? LuciferMorgan 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My best bet is that the correct format is as you were doing it but without a comma, so for today: November 4 2006 November 4 2006. If you could get to work with the refs using that date scheme that would be cool. If it later transpires we need to change the date format I'll use AWB or regular expressions in a text editor or something to fix it... basically, as long as they're standardised they can be cleaned up automatically later. Does that sound OK? --kingboyk 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC) PS I'll look into this more, but my tests suggest the scheme I've just used is the one that gets auto-formatted, in which case I might have to clean up The KLF articles too!


 * Ok will do. So the article published date will be month/date, and so will the last accessed date. I'm a 35 minute car drive from Cardiff if anybody is curious. Maybe 'Lucifer' sounded American. LuciferMorgan 13:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm not worried about the last accessed date being wiki formatted though. The choice is yours on that one. --kingboyk 13:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Date-formatting experiment

 * November 3 2006
 * 3 November 2006

Can you guys (especially those with non-UK Windows settings) tell me how the above dates display in your browser? In Firefox/Windows XP/UK settings I get:
 * November 3, 2006
 * 3 November 2006

Head scratching time... --kingboyk 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All I know is the US does month, date, then year.
 * UK does date, month, year. LuciferMorgan 22:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and try work out what, 11/12/06 is. 12 November 2006? (US) or 11 December 2006? (UK) Owl-stretching time.... --andreasegde 23:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What I'm trying to work out is which of any of these styles get auto-formatted by user preferences (as they're supposed to). Note how the first one gets a comma inserted in my browser, even though the wiki code doesn't include a comma. --kingboyk 12:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once it's worked out, get back to me so I can begin the cite work. LuciferMorgan 12:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, we have communication breakdown here man :) You're American aren't you? Therefore you probably have different regional settings to me. Can you tell me how the two dates above are displayed in your browser? --kingboyk 13:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm from Wales actually in the UK. LuciferMorgan 13:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Why did I think you are American?! Hmm... You may be only just down the road from me then. --kingboyk 13:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a 35 minute car drive from Cardiff if anybody is curious. Maybe 'Lucifer' sounded American. Yes, I think it might have been that coupled with your "love" of Marilyn Manson. Anyway I am indeed not too far from you (Gloucestershire). --kingboyk 15:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chronological
I have just put some semblance into the order. I could accept the deaths of Lennon and Harrison being together somewhere further down, but you can't have The Beatles intro before The Quarrymen. --andreasegde 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we have to do it that way. Each section needs an intro, as far as I know. Isn't that right Mr Morgan? --kingboyk 12:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, each section does need an intro - it's a major mistake many people make when trying to get things to FA. An intro in a section summarises a section. Ie. "Paul McCartney has been featured in several greatest songs lists" for example, and then you'd elaborate with hard, factual evidence. LuciferMorgan 12:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Awards
The song "Michelle" had a Grammy, but does this count? I know he wrote it, but is it for inclusion here since its a Beatles song? LuciferMorgan 12:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At the 17th Grammy Awards, the song (not album) "Band on the Run" won Best Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group. These awards were held on March 1, 1975. - this link can be used to cite the info. LuciferMorgan 12:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice site. It's now in my favourites list. --andreasegde 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's good for getting Grammy info - we could use it in other Beatles related articles. LuciferMorgan 13:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Early years/Beatles sections
If possible please try to avoid resectioning those, I'll be back a little later to finish trying to sort them out. --kingboyk 14:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't be sectioning anything - I'm the cites man, so hope the links in the "To do" list will help. LuciferMorgan 15:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead
I think it might make things easier (given that we have a working-version of the lead on the talk page) and neater if we didn't have citations in the lead?

Since everything in the lead must be in the body, we can cite it there.

What do you think? --kingboyk 15:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If what's in the lead must be in the body, then I agree with you. LuciferMorgan 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it has to. The lead should be a summary of the body, meaning it has to be a duplication. --kingboyk 16:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok ok chill out! LuciferMorgan 16:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That, coincidentally enough, is the other article I'm supposed to be working on for FAC! ;) --kingboyk 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should nominate the article for GAC first (once we're done). LuciferMorgan 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Could do, but I'd be inclined to go for a peer review at WP:WPBIO and straight to WP:FAC, since GAC could take weeks and is merely approval from one editor... Anyrode, you can return to editing now I've taken inuse off :) --kingboyk 16:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This could get FA status, but it'd need a copyedit. I know Tony would pounce on it at FAC if he felt criterion 1. a. wasn't fulfilled. We just need to wade through the "To do" list. LuciferMorgan 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hell yes, it's a long way off. There's huge chunks of basic biographical information missing, and a great deal of amateurish writing remaining. We'll chip away piece by piece, adding in the info and citing it, then polishing for brilliant prose, then PR and optionally GAC. Tony won't be setting his eyes on this for some time to come! :) --kingboyk 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately my writing isn't that good - I hope my links in the "To do" section prove helpful. LuciferMorgan 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Structure
I think between myself and Andreas we've got a reasonable structure now. Do we agree or disagree? --kingboyk 17:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, though I can't recall ever disagreeing? LuciferMorgan 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhh...Music to my ears. --andreasegde 18:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a general query Mr Morgan. Actually, if you must know, the disagreements on structure have been between myself and Andreas, we've been quietly tinkering with it day by day but I'm happy with it now. In fact I think it's F-A-B! :) --kingboyk 13:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick quiz: What is the one physical feature that Jane, Linda and Heather all have? Look at the three photos. (No - don't say large mammary glands...) --andreasegde 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A certain hair colour? LuciferMorgan 19:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Nope. Think of the word "aquiline".--andreasegde 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

DVD
I'm walking on thin ice here, lads. I have just put the anthology DVD in the references section. 1. Am I allowed? 2. Am I allowed to cite it? (I cited it once....) What's the verdict? --andreasegde 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Only sources cited more than once go in the references section (I'll leave you to take it out of the references section - of course in the cite include all the info). I'd like to stray away from referencing albums etc. incase people accuse of bias, but that's my opinion. What's yours Kinboyk? LuciferMorgan 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can cite sleevenotes (see The KLF notes 98 and 99) but with extreme caution; they're perfectly adequate sources for tracklistings, songwriting credits etc.
 * We've discussed Anthology before, but I forget where. Basically, I think it's perfectly fine to quote original interviews on Anthology. Any archive material quoted would be far better referencing the original source, however a shoddy citation is better than no citation at all.
 * Personally I wouldn't put the Anthology DVDs into the references section but would have no qualms citing and quoting from it within the above parameters. --kingboyk 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. I'll take it out of references. andreasegde 15:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah we discussed it before, on Wikiproject Talk I think Kingboyk. LuciferMorgan 15:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
Another thing which FAC is very hot on is fair use images. If it's not possible to justify "fair use" in the strictest terms, and write a fair use rationale for it, we can't use an image. Copyrighted portraits of third parties used decoratively won't be acceptable, I'm pretty sure about that. Regrettably, then, I've had to zap the photos of Linda, Jane and Heather Mills and have added reqimageother tags to the top of this page. --kingboyk 13:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very true... they're more concerned about images than the writing quality! LuciferMorgan 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Quarrymen
I notice the Paul McCartney article now has more inline cites regarding the Quarrymen than the actual Quarrymen main article itself. If any info in the main article is uncited there but cited in the McCartney one, can someone duly add the cites maybe if they have the time? LuciferMorgan 15:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Recycling" citations
Can we all please endeavour (and this is a plea to myself as much as the rest of you) to recycle citations into other articles at the same time? e.g. LuciferM just mentioned the Quarrymen. If we cite a fact about the Quarrymen and the same fact is in that article, cite it there at the same time. That way we'll be improving multiple articles with minimal extra effort and making future work easier. --kingboyk 15:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, but as I seem to be the main offender, I have to say that I was going to do that after this article was finished. It will be much easier to do it in one fell swoop later. I don't want to get confused about which page I'm on, and which reference I copied. (Believe me, I find it easy to get confused...) Also, anybody editing related articles can copy the references over themselves. --andreasegde 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair points Andreas. It may be better doing it afterwards. LuciferMorgan 16:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fair enough. --kingboyk 16:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a point to cheer us all up: references - 187 and counting. LuciferMorgan's '200 references' target is definitely going to achieved. ("And the crowd goes wild...") --andreasegde 16:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gosh. I think we might hit 300 - I wonder what the record is?! --kingboyk 16:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol my target isn't 200 - that was a mere estimation of when the book cites are given their individual page numbers. Knowing our luck some editors may complain about the article's size. LuciferMorgan 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's currently just over 100k. After removing HTML comments and trimming excessive detail, but with at the current time some detail and citations still missing, the final figure is gonna be around that mark I'd guess - maybe more. I think we'll have to just wait and see. No point worrying about it just yet. If the article is cruft free we might get away with it, or we might have to start some more child articles, but we won't know until we have something like the finished article (first draft thereof). --kingboyk 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't say I like the Refs section coming before Notes. Do they do it in books? Nope. LuciferMorgan 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought refs should be first. Do we have example articles to look at? --kingboyk 18:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wish I could think of one, but the way I've always did it is Notes first so people can then look at where the cites came from in the Refs section. LuciferMorgan 20:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Divorce Settlement Figure
This is hard to fix as it ranges from source to source - - this one from July for example estimated it at £10 million. - Here's another saying she was paid off to keep quiet about their marriage. LuciferMorgan 16:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * PS - Found a source for the prostitute bit. LuciferMorgan 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'll get meself a glass of wine shortly, but I have those tabloid articles open in tabs and will add some references tommorow. Some tabloid links are exactly what we need to reflect this very tabloid divorce. I'll keep commentary minimal and let the reader decide. --kingboyk 20:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's wait and see what the facts are before we comment on it. --andreasegde 21:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Norwegian Wikipedia
Macca's article on the Norwegian wiki is Featured. Anyone here speak Norwegian? :) I notice that they have a similar structure to what we've come up with (sections for Wings, activism, classical music etc.) --kingboyk 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, I looked at that two days ago. (FA articles, and all that...)--andreasegde 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I normally never do this, but I have to say that it's not anywhere near to the quality of our article, even though it's a Norwegian FA. (Sorry, to all of you Norwegian editors. :) --andreasegde 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's actually only GA. Having said that, it wouldn't reach GA on our Wikipedia (no offence). LuciferMorgan 21:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's FA but they use the image that we use for GA. Agreed, it wouldn't make FA here but different wikis have different standards. The English and German wikipedias are way ahead of most others, but the others will catch up! There's some wonderful folks over at the Norwegian Wikipedia (see no:Talk:The KLF) so lay off em alright! :) :) --kingboyk 11:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm merely assessing the articles lol. LuciferMorgan 01:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which you are doing extremely well. --andreasegde 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Quarrymen section
Absolutely spiffing, first rate work Andreas! I'm "dead impressed", hardly found a thing to copyedit :) --kingboyk 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Spiffing" - what a nice word. I thank you kindly, Kingboyk. Any chance of a Quarrymen barnstar? Oh well, never mind... --andreasegde 20:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, I was going to give Lucifer Morgan a "Rolling Stones barnstar" for his services in getting Beatles articles defeatured ;) hehehe --kingboyk 20:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol what's a "Rolling Stones" barnstar? By the way, I'm such a petty guy I've even put two of the three Beatles GAs up for review too (stone me now!). LuciferMorgan 21:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * lol, I think we should be thankful that LuciferMorgan is with us on this page. It's not a case of "The enemy is inside the walls", but rather, "The enemy is inside the walls, and he's helping us build them back up". More power to...err... that thing between his forearm and upper arm... :) --andreasegde 05:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, although that does conjur up an image of the Trojan horse ;) But, seriously, LuciferM will get a real barnstar from me soon enough but not just yet as we need to keep him motivated :) --kingboyk 11:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks lol. Actually, I'm more of an enemy of GAs/FAs that fail to meet their criteria - I think this Wikiproject needs a true reflection of where it's at, and not some old FAs that don't meet today's criteria. I mean, if you compare the KLF song FAs to the Beatles song FAs, the difference in quality is immediate. What pleases me though is after awhile of nominating Beatles FAs with not a care in the world off the Project, now actually there's two people who're determined to get it going. LuciferMorgan 18:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles section
Before you do too much work on that section Andreas, can I just issue a reminder that because of article size constraints we only want a potted chronology - the very key events with particular emphasis on McCartney's experiences. --kingboyk 20:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very right. I think that McCartney's personal experiences should be there, with short lines about the main things that happened. Err... which is exactly what Kingboyk said, but in reverse. --andreasegde 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Length (said the the actress to the Bishop)
I have a disturbing feeling that the length of this article (as Kingboyk has pointed out) will be a problem, and will be commented on. How do we get around that? I am in the middle of The Beatles, but there is still a lot to put in (I am making it as concise as possible, by the way) so what can we do? This is a special case, as Macca has had such a long career, so should we collect all of it, and then fork it? Please ignore this if you think I'm rambling on... :) --andreasegde 05:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As in a thread above, we'll deal with that later I think. Let's get the key material and citations in place, give the resulting text a good copyedit, and see what we're left with. --kingboyk 11:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

200
Sound of fireworks, the crowd goes wild, it's a goal, they think it's all over - it is now, I'd like to thank the academy, mine's a pint, and yes, yes, yes... 200 in-line citations. Our cup overfloweth. --andreasegde 06:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was, but now it's gone back to 194. --andreasegde 11:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A new editor (to this article) did some cleaning, I think. Have you checked they didn't zap any references that should have been kept? --kingboyk 11:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not yet. I looked at the history, and it said some were "not real references". You're better at that than me. --andreasegde 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's now 202. Come on 300, we're waiting for yer... --andreasegde 19:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Beatrice's birthdate
Take your pick between the rags. The Sun says that Beatrice's birthday is 30 Oct. Hello! says 28 Oct. --kingboyk 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Divorce
And, on the theme of the divorce, whilst I think we have about the right amount of content now there's no need to skimp on references especially given the controversial nature of the material. Therefore if you find additional articles from different newspapers saying the same things feel free to add extra citations. Just queue 'em up, one ref after the other no spaces between. --kingboyk 12:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that we should wait until the outcome. One editor once told me that "this is not a magazine", with which I agree. --andreasegde 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We can't not mention it, but I think we shouldn't add any more material certainly. I agree with the "this is not a magazine" sentiment absolutely, but even a journal or up to date print enyclopedia would have to at least mention the impending divorce. Kinda agreeing with you... Also, some info and citations will probably become redundant at some point and deleted (once the divorce is over and the amounts are finalised) but that doesn't prevent us being thorough with the interrim info :) --kingboyk 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

- This Sun article calls Mills a former porn model. LuciferMorgan 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, inserted, thanks. --kingboyk 20:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On a purely personal (POV) note, I thought that Lady Mucca was trouble right from the start.--andreasegde 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm seems no wonder everyones fighting Macca's corner, and not hers. LuciferMorgan 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way Andreas, I think Lady Macca was only one woman, and she's no longer with us (Linda R.I.P.). LuciferMorgan 21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lady MUCCA not Macca, as the rags have dubbed her... --andreasegde 14:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still think Paul was vulnerable when they hooked up. LuciferMorgan 17:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was the aquiline nose thing. He's a sucker for it. --andreasegde 21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Progress report
As you all know, I am adding things to McCartney's Beatles' time, as well as other bits. Any comments? Too much detail - not concise enough? --andreasegde 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure really - my Beatles knowledge is minimal (best have Kingboyk tell you when he comes back). I'll see if I have time this weekend to sort out the cites. LuciferMorgan 23:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * PS - How's the page numbers coming along? LuciferMorgan 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well, although I'm only up to the middle of The Beatles. I've put a lot of new stuff in, but the other page numbers aren't a problem. --andreasegde 12:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out my last 8 original "Years" references, (mostly in Asher's piece) but it won't be a problem to page-reference them.

BTW, I don't know who's doing it (and I don't want to know) but I wish some of the lines like "Not good enough! I want a citation from the original source..." could be toned down a bit. I love doing this, but I don't want to feel as if I have to do it... Try phrases like, "We need a good/original citation here"... --andreasegde 12:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't take criticisms of text personally mate. You've done an unbelievable job. I'll try to beef up some of the refs and add any which need beefing up to the todo list, but please keep at it you're doing a sterling job. --kingboyk 17:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I do love doing it, because it has taken preference over my addiction to "Civilisation II". We are doing something that is totally new on Wikipedia. "Lock and load", as they say. --andreasegde 19:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Class Report
The Macca class has been slowly improving over the last term, and this is to be congratulated. Pupil LuciferMorgan has been especially diligent in his efforts to 'rein-in' the more unruly members of the class, and (as class Monitor) his work is highly appreciated (especially concerning the alphabetical order of the books in the school library). Pupil Kingboyk has made a steady (and sure) progress throughout the last term - as always - and his position as 'class leader' is, without doubt, highly regarded. Pupil Andreasegde has been industrious and hard-working, although his aggressive attitude about books and their relevance should be curbed. Vera, Chuck and Dave have all been absent during the last term (due to an unfortunate accident) but we all hope they will make a speedy recovery and return soon. (It must be noted that they have made worthy contributions during their illness.)

All-in-all a good term, and I wish all the pupils every success in the future. --Mr Hornby - The Macca School of Economics 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I get a Roll of Honour or something? Haha! LuciferMorgan 00:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That can be arranged. I'll meet you outside the staff room after school. P.S. Bring money...--Mr Hornby - The Macca School of Economics
 * Unfortunately this pupil won't be doing much homework for a while. I'll still be keeping an eye on the article and chipping in when I can, but I have a personal project to work on. Email me if you want more info. This article will remain my focus on Wikipedia so I'll certainly be around just not as much as usual. --kingboyk 15:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Beatles references
I'm stuck on this now. I have a choice to put only stuff in that relates directly to Macca, or slip in references about songs, films and albums, etc. I'm stuck... --andreasegde 13:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Should there be a section on the Indica gallery in the Art etc. section? --andreasegde 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's me done for today. I'm off for a pint wi' me bird. (233 citations, BTW. :) --andreasegde 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No - hold on - I'm back (doesn't this bloke ever give up?) Why have the pictures gone? If it's because of "fair use", I understand, but can't we get anymore? Right, that's definitely it - I'm off... --andreasegde 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I guess the most important works can be mentioned. I'll try to read what you've done later to get a better idea of where we're at (sorry, been away, trying to work on more important things but not progressing too well! :
 * Indica Gallery can be mentioned I think. We need to mention Paul is dead. References from other books would be cool.
 * Images: I explained this above. FAC is very strict on fair use. I've added "image request" tags to the top of this talk. I'm not a killjoy - I want us to have photos of each Macca's "ladies" but the images we had weren't eligible I think. --kingboyk 17:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kingboyk's right - if this wasn't the case then the KLF discography would easily be a Featured List. Blame FAC reviewers. LuciferMorgan 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Critical response
Even though it is tough to find newspaper articles that summarize a critical response about McCartney, these references might help in writing it :
 * http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/6620
 * http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20051024/ai_n15716512
 * http://arts.guardian.co.uk/fridayreview/story/0,,1123641,00.html#article_continue ... hints at the split
 * http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20010506/ai_n13959915 ... not praising him like the other articles

This quote taken from a New York Times Upfront in 2004 : would Beatlemania sweep the U.S.? A Times review of a filmed Beatles performance on NBC in early January 1964 said that "it would not seem quite so likely that the accompanying fever known as Beatlemania will also be successfully exported." (As Chandler Bing might say, "Could that reviewer be any more wrong?")

Here kingboyk, I don't say remove the critical response section but it is gonna be tough to find material for it. Lincher 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhh... that 'drownedinsound' article is the most biased POV I have read in a long time. Do we really want to include stuff like that? It gets close to libel, in my humble opinion. --andreasegde 15:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, perhaps that will have to be a section for me to work on then. I'm pretty sure there are sources. Macca's a guy who until recently polarised the press isn't he? Anyrode, we can always ditch the idea if it doesn't work. --kingboyk 15:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a great idea to have a critique of Macca, but it will be difficult without straying into POVs. Are there any critiques of Gandhi or Jesus? lol :) --andreasegde 16:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, NPOV means reporting the rough with the smooth. Since there is a body of opinion that Macca, well, "sucks" (Frog Chorus anyone?) the NPOV thing to do is report that, offset with the (larger) body of opinion that he's a living legend. --kingboyk 16:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are some interesting/revealing quotations in the Miles' book that I'm using at the moment, which hints at Macca's jealousy that Lennon gets all the credit for being the literate one, and Paul being only the "nice, cute Beatle". It's all read-between-the-lines stuff, but it shows his real anger/jealousy that people think he's all "pizza and fairytales" (Lennon). It might be good to angle the piece so that all the critiques are balanced with Macca's views. What say you all, my dear comrades-in-arms? --andreasegde 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. That could make for a really interesting section: for, against, and Macca's own views. I expect we could find some stuff from Lennon taking both positions too. --kingboyk 10:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look at Lennon's Playboy article, when I've finished with Macca's drug consumption and his book-buying. --andreasegde 19:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

288 References
288 references so far. (Will this madness never end?...hehe :) --andreasegde 15:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's looking cool. One thing, the "last album to date" bit at the end of the 80's section I wanna take out - this fact may change should McCartney get another number one album. Also, I think this is way better than GA right now. I'm gonna nominate it right now, but everyone keep working on the article - if they don't like the fact it's unstable then stuff them. LuciferMorgan 18:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol, LuciferMorgan said "stuff them". We are a now an unstoppable team. This has made my day... :)--andreasegde 19:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Responding to the "last number one" bit: the point there is that it was a long time ago. The 80s were quite a successful decade for McCartney, the 90s less so. The 00s saw of course something of a comeback but on the back of a highly acclaimed (I think) world tour. I've no objection to changing how we reflect that (or reflect a different trajectory if I'm wrong) but I wouldn't want to lose all reference to it, as though he's been getting smash hits from the 60s to date (he hasn't). --kingboyk 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is currently unreferenced, having a fact tag. Could we change it to last number one album of the 20th century then? LuciferMorgan 21:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wrote it and tagged it with fact (I tend to do that when I'm working on a referenced article and haven't got the definitive info to hand). Last of the 20th century is fine, but: I don't like statements that age either. However, is it a problem in this case? It was nearly 20 years ago. --kingboyk 09:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it was his last of the 20th century - McCartney will get another number one album, probably after he passes on. LuciferMorgan 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, that occurred to me too. He'll probably get a posthumous number one single and/or album whether or not he ever gets to the top spot in his lifetime again. Nonetheless I don't have any problem with describing something that happened ~20 years ago as "last to date". Drummond and Cauty could get back together (1987 debut, 1997 FTM, 2007 ??) but I still describe FTM as their last collab to date. --kingboyk 18:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Size
This article is 75k of pure prose. It will probably be asked to be axed downed or split in order to achieve the GA/FA standards don't you think. Lincher 18:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, but Kingboyk and LuciferMorgan will definitely have. I'm probably to blame though, as I am throwing everything and the 'kitchen sink' in. --andreasegde 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you should probably go easier on the peripheral info about his life - let the readers buy a book :) That said, Lincher, even if Andreas reigns (sp.?) himself in a bit, with such a long career and so many interests this article is likely to trouble 100k whatever we do. We'll review the situation when we're done. We don't want any more forks if we can help it. That's about all I can say at the moment. I'll be coming in with my cutting knife and trimming it down when it's done, and we'll see what we have left. --kingboyk 18:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I even put his dog 'Martha' in... --andreasegde 18:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Martha My Dear. And wasn't Jet named after an animal too? And don't forget the Land Rover, Helen Wheels :) --kingboyk 18:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm up to "Making the albums", which is very long and details the writing of songs. I would prefer it if someone else tackled that (songs, albums etc..) because I don't know how much to put in. (Ouch! Sound of ruler on bare knuckles...) --andreasegde 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say pretty much nothing, unless it's career defining (e.g. "scrambled eggs"->"Yesterday", which could get a one sentence mention in the 1960s section). Details about individual songs will have to go into the song articles (or album articles if the song doesn't have one). --kingboyk 18:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy VII is 96kb, and that's an FA. Additionally, if this doesn't pass GA / FA standards, it races past them and smashes straight through their winning post. Size is a poor reason for objection - this has ten times more refs than average FAs / GAs, keeps straight to NPOV ten times more than average FAs / GAs. It's superior in every aspect. LuciferMorgan 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Andreas has done a truly amazing job. But, we do need to keep an eye on size and remember this is a summary piece not a complete history. We've done really well on that aspect so far: The Beatles sections, for example. If we want to write a book we can always do that later ;) (and no GFDL please, I need the money, hehe). --kingboyk 19:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol. Anyway, the size is fine considering Macca's career - if we didn't summarise it'd be a 1000Kb! LuciferMorgan 23:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Footnote #3
is currently blank because I altered the first use (footnote 2) to reference the BBC article (which was a news article and not written by the interviewer). Footnote 3 is citations using the same source (ref name="HardTalk") but which don't appear in the article.

Maybe they appear in the video? (I don't know, I don't have RealMedia). If they do, we'll need to cite the TV programme not the article. If not, we can find other citations. If you can fix it please do, otherwise - don't worry about it - I'll fix it up some time. --kingboyk 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (PS HARDtalk is a respected TV programme from BBC News so citing the actual programme should be fine.)


 * I can't work it out. Is it two citations together, or one? I'll be blowed if I know... --andreasegde 18:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Footnote 3 is other uses of footnote 2, but for facts which aren't mentioned in that web article. I fixed up footnote 2 and renamed it "HardTalk"; the other uses became footnote 3 because I couldn't verify them. If you have no idea then please replace them with fact. (I hope that's clear now cos it doesn't look too clear to me :)). --kingboyk 18:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Macca is a... in his own words
I have started to add some bits to McCartney being tough, and they are all in his (and Linda's) own words. Give 'em enough rope.... --andreasegde 19:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos
Exactly. I will say no more... :)--andreasegde 20:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes I will: I have put the "Yesterday" cover in, because it's from an FA site, so it must be kosher... --andreasegde 15:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indica Gallery
I'm gonna contradict myself a little now and suggest that I move the bulk of the (interesting) material about the Indica Gallery to the article specifically about it. Indica Gallery is currently a stub, and could do with beefing up; this article need not have such detail. I think that would be an excellent compromise: just give the Gallery a sentence or two as we do for LIPA.

Please let me know if you agree or not and if you do I'll do it later. --kingboyk 11:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea. The only thing I get nervous about is putting time in on something and then it gets zapped. It's going to a good home, so feel free. --andreasegde 13:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The stuff on 34 Montagu Square could also be farmed out to the Montagu Square page. (I forgot that Lennon and Ono had their nude photo taken there, and it isn't mentioned in the Macca book...) --andreasegde 15:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless it's deleted nothing is ever really zapped on wiki of course (and even deleted pages can generally be brought back).
 * Anyway, I digress. I'll do the Indica stuff now and take a look at the Montagu Square situation. Cheers Andreas (is Andreas your name? I'm not sure we ever resolved that? If it isn't your name perhaps you can reveal it in the next newsletter? :)) --kingboyk 16:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done Indica but there's a few issues outstanding:
 * Did Macca have any involvement with the founding or funding of The International Times (something is nagging at me saying he did). If he did, that can get a sentence too (and a mention in International Times).
 * Did Miles remain a friend for life? I think in the Indica paragraph we can add a sentence about Miles and his writing of Macca's (authorised?) biography. Perhaps we even need an article on Miles' book?
 * I've done the best I can for now on fitting the info into Indica Gallery but you might want to tweak it. With a bit more info about the exhibitions held there (including, of course, Yoko's) that article could easily aspire to GA if you fancy working on it a bit more. --kingboyk 17:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Doh! It says there that he helped start it! :) If you could give me some more info about his connection to Miles (I read the book but have fading brain cells) I'll give the section a tweak. --kingboyk 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what, if anything, I can do with the Montagu Square text at the moment. --kingboyk 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I cited Macca's comment that he "helped" start the International Times in the article. He didn't say that he funded it, but he probably did.
 * Macca's relationship with Miles goes back a long way. Miles later managed Zapple. --andreasegde 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course he did! Told you I had a bad memory. And after that, friendship right through until the book was written? --kingboyk 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I'm a pedantic sort of git, I'll do Miles after finishing this mammoth article. Will it ever end...? :) --andreasegde 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Miles talks/writes a lot in the foreword of the book, and said/wrote lots of stuff. I'll save it on my bookshelf until we're finished with 'Elephantusie-Maccus Biggus-Poppus'. --andreasegde 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just discovered that the book already has an article: Many Years From Now. --kingboyk 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that. Both Miles' page and the book page will get added to, and tweaked. --andreasegde 19:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

297
No explanation needed :) --andreasegde 16:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my forking of the Indica Gallery section cost you a few ;) --kingboyk 17:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait until I get the Spitz book out and all the others. 300 or bust... :)) --andreasegde 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

302. I saw a page (the band Fluke) and somebody said 45 in-line references was "almost referencing it to death". Does that mean I'm dead? :) Hey, I've just read it again, and who's name did I see on the talk page? "Her....e..........s...sss Kingboyk!" :)) --andreasegde 10:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I don't know much about Fluke (only have 2 singles of theirs) but they were contemporaries of The KLF and part of the British electronic music scene. The guy writing that article has helped with feedback and positive comments on KLF articles and FACs so I returned the favour :) It's a pretty nice article. I think perhaps even better is The Orb which User:Wickethewok has been working on (81 citations). --kingboyk 12:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference
I took out the "Mostsuccessfulartistever" reference, because the original web/book reference had been deleted some time in the past. --andreasegde 10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To do
I know this should be in the 'to do' section but I thought I would point out a few glaring points.
 * Photos
 * A discography section (to take out all those confusing "was a hit" comments.)--andreasegde 17:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Where are you all?

We are nearly there. Let's finish the last lap. --andreasegde 05:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Phone and internet went down on Thursday. Came back up last night! One of the perils of living in the countryside :) --kingboyk 10:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm here - just tied right now. Long story. LuciferMorgan 16:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides anyway, you both seem to be getting on totally fine without me. It's not like I ever made a major contribution anyway. LuciferMorgan 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, now, we won't have talk like that. Your contributions are very worthy, Mr LuciferMorgan. We need your eagle-eyes, and your intelligent comments. Do not lose heart. --andreasegde 03:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's mostly Andreasegde at the moment (still haven't deciphered the anagram!) as I'm working on some off-wiki stuff. I'm still keeping an eye though and will be here to help with the copyediting and the final push towards FAC. --kingboyk 12:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Meditation
What about a section on Meditation? There's a whole chapter on the Maharishi. --andreasegde 16:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I put one in, because he does still meditate, and he did it in Japan when he was in the 'nick'/prison.

Stuck
Apart from adding extra citations in, I'm stuck on this now. Where are the weak points? Maybe we should wait until the GA review... --andreasegde 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The band members during the Wings period are not really mentioned, although one or two are. What about Geoff Britten/Joe English etc...? --andreasegde 04:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shodda read this first! Yeah DEFFO, unsung heroes an all that! Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm this is the McCartney article, not the Wings one. LuciferMorgan 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, but they should get a name mention - err... or maybe not? Hmmm... He's had more musicians than a groupie, after all :)

Repeated
I've had a good look at the 1990s, and I saw some awards and classical things in there that should be moved, or maybe not. This section needs the steely-eyed glare of LuciferMorgan. --andreasegde 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends on how you want the article laid out. Awards are mentioned in other sections, but then again there's an "Awards" section. It's a difficult balance indeed. LuciferMorgan 20:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like "we" better. What shall we do? (I have moved one award thing, but there is another reference to classical music that is repeated below...) --andreasegde 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got it. If the award is connected to something specific (like the Family Way) it should be left, but the lifetime award, etc., should be moved down. --andreasegde 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Animated films
Should this have a section of its own? He did a few, and not only Rupert and the Frog... and he worked with Geoff Dunbar on a few projects. --andreasegde 18:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Now it has... but it's only a stub. --andreasegde 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

More Citations
I am now going to start reading through the Bob Spitz book, but it only deals with The Beatles period. I will take out a lot of Barry Miles' references, and replace them with Spitz, so it evens things out a bit. Everybody happy? --andreasegde 18:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone complains, I will only take out a few Miles' references, and add more from Spitz, as he has a lot more info than Miles. I never noticed it before, but Spitz laid out his book in the same way as this article is now, and is much easier to use for citations. (Do I here Kingboyk saying "I told you so..."? :)) --andreasegde 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting the disturbing feeling that Spitz is a Lennon fan. I'm glad I started on the Miles' book first. --andreasegde 17:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

B, or Good Article?
Why is it listed as a good article at the top, and then below as a B article? I'm as confused as a fish in a pint of guinness... --andreasegde 19:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a clown in the GA room passing articles without properly reviewing them. It's very disruptive. It's back as a nominee again, so is now 'B' (FA in my book though lol). LuciferMorgan 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, LuciferMorgan. This is why we need you. --andreasegde 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's 'Cocoaguy'. He can't spell. Such is life... --andreasegde 04:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

340 citations so far
Somebody is definitely going to mention this in the House of Commons. What a scandal - it shouldn't be allowed... --andreasegde 18:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I realise that I'm putting in stuff that should really go into Lennon/McCartney, or The Beatles, but it's easier for me, and the references I'm putting in can be copied over later. Everybody happy? --andreasegde 21:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes just make sure you salvage stuff before I come with my scissors, or better still that you know how to look at old revisions ;) --kingboyk 13:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a Cannabis photo from an FA article. --andreasegde 21:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird Al Yankovic
Has been deleted because it had no citations. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it... --andreasegde 22:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Prose
Maybe the prose should be worked upon now? The citations part is now much less of an issue than the prose. HIV, for example, had over a 100 cites, but all the editors moaned about the prose during its FAC. Its FAC failed as a result - important lesson here! LuciferMorgan 01:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough, I was thinking that yesterday. OK, time to get the polish out... --andreasegde 07:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well my take on it was that everything should be cited from books (preferably not just Miles) and then the copyediting and scissors treatment would be a seperate process.


 * I know I've not been around lately and will likely to continue to be absent most of the time until Christmas, but when the copyediting and dealing with the to-do list becomes the priority please drop me an email and I'll come and help.


 * In the meantime Macca is in the running to be BBC "Living Icon", see http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/livingicons/ --kingboyk 13:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll bet you "a pound to a penny" (or a beer) that he comes out on top. No contest: Lost his mum as a kid, was 'Beatle Paul', most succesful composer etc., wrote "Yesterday" all on his lonesome, still lives in England and so has paid millions in taxes, lived with wife for years without ever having had an affair (I don't believe that bit) and then lost her to breast cancer (same disease as his Mum), is a Sir (because of the tax money) spawned successful children, started a school for the Arts, survived/surviving Lady Mucca... need I go on? Oh, I forgot, he also wrote The Frog Song... --andreasegde 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to myself
Dear andreasegde, Wonderful Christmastime needs a quote and ref. "Rockestra" Grammy as well- --andreasegde 11:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Done it, andreasegde. --andreasegde 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) No, I'm not talking to myself. Yes you are! No I'm not, etc. etc... --egdeandreas (the other one) 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Chart positions
I'm not sure if the chart positions should be in, as they are on the discography page, and they look messy. Anyone for tennis? --andreasegde 17:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My fingers are itching to zap them out... Anyone for tea? --andreasegde 17:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Any comment on this? (I'm getting an 'itchy trigger-finger' on this one.) --andreasegde 19:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Song samples
Before anyone slaps my wrist for stealing song samples from The Beatles page, I cut the samples down to songs that are accepted - and have been cited - as solely McCartney-written songs. It would be nice to have some solo songs. --andreasegde 18:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"A major edit"
"This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while." What is all that about?... It's gone now... No... wait a minute... --andreasegde 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm pissed off. All of the 'McCartney solo' section been moved to Macca's solo career, which is probably not a bad thing, but he/she Messedrocker moved John Lennon's death, the Anthology CDs, the death of George Harrison, his 64th birthday, his unreleased collaboration with Yoko (with Linda) and his Grammy award, which will entail no end of edits - and he/she says, "somebody will have to write a summary". What a bleeding cheek. No note left on this talk page, either. It is nothing short of theft. I am (for once) speechless. --andreasegde 00:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Back to normal
It's back to normal again. It was reverted by the editor concerned. I can calm down now... --andreasegde 12:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1970s and 1980s
In my humble opinion the 1970s looks messy and lacks cohesion. The 1980s has too many (#1 UK - #5 US) for my taste, as they are not repeated for other songs in other sections. What to do? (Sound of sighing, and fingers drumming on desk...) --andreasegde 19:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

353 citations, and there is only a bit of "tweaking" (Kingboyk) to do, but probably loads to do, when the 'GA article' comments start coming in... --andreasegde 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wish the GA review had come by now. Everyone knows this article is FA. LuciferMorgan 00:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you say so LuciferMorgan, I am very happy to believe you. (I've been thinking about the Lennon article already...) --andreasegde 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lennon's school
I have read through a couple of books, and I still can't find where Lennon went to school (Primary and Junior). Have I missed something, am I blind, or just stupid? (Don't answer that last one... :) --andreasegde 19:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am completely stupid: "Quarry Bank Grammar School". How did I miss that? It's a case of "not seeing the wood for the trees"... I shall now wear a hair shirt for a week, and slap myself with a wet fish. How embarrassing. --andreasegde 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review is coming very soon
Right, people; gird your loins, batten down the hatches, make sail, all hands on deck, don't cough because you'll start an avalanche, and make sure you have fresh underwear, because this article is placed as #1 on the "Music and musicians" list on the candidates page. Here we go, here we go, here we go... --andreasegde 05:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a tip--the lead is too much a recitation of facts, rather it should summarize the article. It has so many refs that it's distracting to read it. Rlevse 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like citations in leads either, with the exception of potentially controversial statements. We have a modified lead in the todo list, can we integrate those changes into a reduced, more highly targetted lead Andrew? Then when it's time for my edit job I'll take care of moving the citations into the body. When you need me please send me an email (NB I'm starting nightshift on Monday, this isn't the best time for me but if now is the moment I'll try my best). --kingboyk 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination PASS

 * I felt quite uncomfortable with the lead, and when I came to this page I saw my thoughts echoed just above. It's too long and too detailed; it should be a summary of key points. [It is important to note that everything else is fine.]
 * Having said that, I have two options: put the article on hold and suggest you improve the lead, or PASS the article and politely request it. I choose the latter. Consider yourselves politely requested to do so. PASS.--Ling.Nut 04:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the taking the time to review the article Ling.Nut. We'll take care of the lead before FAC (i.e. real soon). Congrats Andrew on achieving GA! --kingboyk 14:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm this guy has been in music 40 years, and was part of the Beatles. I have no objections towards the lead - you can't trim it, and it isn't too long in my opinion. To say so is stupid. LuciferMorgan 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will take the citations out of the lead, and try and trim it a little bit, if nobody minds. --andreasegde 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest the lead could easily be cut into two paragraphs by moving most of the other stuff into the relevant sections; my suggested lead would be;


 * Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE, (born June 18, 1942, Liverpool) is an English songwriter, musician and singer, who is best known as a former member of The Beatles (one half of the songwriting partnership known as Lennon/McCartney) and a member of Wings (with Linda McCartney). McCartney is listed in The Guinness Book Of Records as the most successful musician in popular music history, with sales of 100 million singles and 60 gold discs. Aside from his musical work, McCartney is a painter[2] (although until recently he kept his artwork private) and a strong advocate for animal rights,[3] vegetarianism, music education (LIPA), and is against landmines.[4] [5]
 * Then straight into the contents list. Everything else in the current lead should already be in the various sections. Since this article is collabrative I feel being bold is not the course of action, so I am making my suggestions for those who have worked long and hard on this piece to consider.LessHeard vanU 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC) ps. well done! pps. A one paragraph lead, an' all!

GA
Congratulations to Kingboyk, LuciferMorgan, Vera Chuck and Dave, and that other bloke... :) --andreasegde 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoever that other bloke is LOL. LuciferMorgan 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The famous Sean de Garde of course! Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Class report
The class has been very diligent this term, and has managed to assemble itself into what is turning out to be a commendable and cohesive whole (no pun intended.) Its work has been rated by the School Board as 'Generally alright' (GA). This is to be applauded, as they started the term with a mountain of 'POV' (Positively outrageous viewpoints) that had to be worked upon.

There are some other points to be made, however, that are of some concern: Pupil Kingboyk has developed the unusual trait of introducing non-standard English phrases into class discussions, like “no-brainer”, and "tweak it", which, I am afraid to say, are against school standards. Pupil LuciferMorgan must curb his irritation when pupils (from other classes in the school) are not as fast, and precise, as he would like, although it must be said that his own work is of the highest standard. Pupils Vera, Chuck and Dave are recovering from their unfortunate accident, and this is to be welcomed, but using the help of minors - from our Junior school - to help them when finishing their homework is frowned upon. Pupil andreasegde has been often vocal, and hard working, but his insistence on teamwork and co-operation is leaning towards socialism, which the School Board vehemently opposes. :) --Mr Hornby - Class tutor 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Prose
It would be good to go through the article and point out the prose that needs to be improved. (I don't like the "70s" bit very much, BTW, because it looks messy.) Anyone want a cucumber sandwich? --andreasegde 22:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to edit the Lead, but I only get a blank page (like a new article). Bugger... --andreasegde 22:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Whatever happened has just ignored five edits. Bloody bugger. --andreasegde 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved the references from the Lead to the article, and have cut it down a bit. It does look cleaner now, and is easier to read, I think... More tea, vicar? --andreasegde 09:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, who's gonna nominate this for FA, after we've cleaned it up a bit? Tally Ho chaps... --andreasegde 14:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Usually the person willing to address editor concerns is the person who nominates. LuciferMorgan 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well - that's not me... Let's get someone like LuciferMorgan to do it, because he knows how to "separate the wheat from the chaff". If he thinks it's good enough, then it's good enough. :) --andreasegde 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Prose would be a likely concern, and is something I can't address. Tony is the guy to watch out for - if the prose is even slightly naff, he'll review the article with a hatchet. Maybe we should ask him to review the prose? LuciferMorgan 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not good enough to throw to Tony yet (because Tony is very much a perfectionist and a professional copyeditor). I had a quick scan earlier and saw a few things which need improving. It's best we copyedit ourselves before approaching him otherwise he'll throw a fit. This is all gonna take a while and whilst we might get an FA now I'd prefer to submit an article which damn near perfect. Andrew's put so much into this, let's have it set a new standard! --kingboyk 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above. I looked through it yesterday, and saw lots of silly little bits that I had never seen before, strangely enough. I call it 'PC monitor blindness'. You carefully read something three times, print it out, and then see mistakes on the printed page. --andreasegde 04:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree also with the above. I haven't a clue how to address prose though, as I'm no good with it. LuciferMorgan 17:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw those things after not reading the article for a while. I will spend some time editing when I can, but at the moment I'm getting home from work totally knackered. (It's manual work and I'm not used to it). Hopefully I'll have a go at the weekend. Also we could try to find a new set of eyes to help out. --kingboyk 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clone sites
Doesn't it pee one off to read our edits on a 'clone site'? Kingboyk mentioned this once, and now I know exactly what he means. The lazy, cheating buggers... --andreasegde 21:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you love your subject, and/or if you believe in the dissemination (free, without obligation) of information to any and all who wish to participate in democracy/free will, then no - it is enough that I contribute. Since I do not get paid, and do not require undue recognition, then I do it for love, and I wish there was more love I could spread around (oooh-er, Vicar!). I suspect that you feel the same, deep down, or you wouldn't hide behind your username.... yes, that is humour - and well done for recognising same! LessHeard vanU 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC) nb. most clone sites acknowledge Wikipedia in the small print.


 * But these sites are involved in some kind of sponsorship/advertising = revenue etc., are they not? They're profiting from it, and they should be smacked on their bottoms until it hurts... (Quick nurse, the screens... :) --andreasegde 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's part of the deal. What I objected to was seeing my work on sites which don't acknowledge me, or try to hide it in the smallest print possible. I'm actually planning to use some Wikipedia-sourced material on sites with ads myself, see if I can get a few cents back in return for my time :), so I don't object to that part of it. (It's like Linux: free including the free right to sell it). --kingboyk 02:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Tweaking" - © Kingboyk
I think I will print out the whole page, and look at it in the cold light of day. This is to avoid "monitor blindness" - © andreasegde :) It's amazing how clear everything becomes when it's on A4 paper. --andreasegde 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The poor McCartneys
"Couldn't afford to buy a television until 1953"? Bugger me - my dad said that the first TV he bought was in 1960 (and he was a miner). People who had a 'telly' in '53 were well off. (Errr... is this a replay of the "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch from Monty Python?...) Anybody fancy a pint?... --andreasegde 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol yeah they don't sound that poor. Your dad bought his first TV in 1960? Mine weren't even born until 1965! LuciferMorgan 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll have a pint of Watneys Bleeeeeeding Red Barrel - you don't give a tinkers cuss for the struggling artiste... (sorry, wrong sketch!). ps. LM, that makes me considerably older than your parents!!LessHeard vanU 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC) pps. I've SPAGged the article - best get a fresh pair of eyes to look it over.

Archive
Can someone archive the redundant discussion on the page please? It's 99kb! Thanks. LuciferMorgan 18:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Article size, todo
I've taken 3kb off by removing the HTML comments and some excessive detail. Please don't put the HTML comments about references back. I know they have some value but we can't afford the bytes.

I've done a bit to the todo list but will have to come back to attend it to more fully and do my share of the copyediting. --kingboyk 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have taken out bits here and there that were Maccas own POV, or irrelevant. (The cats and Jagger-pot have gone.) I also had to take out the references as well, which was soddin' worse than pulling teeth. (Ow...) --andreasegde 07:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been taking out more (but it still hurts...) Should the Macca quote about 'Give Ireland back to the Irish' being banned be taken out? It's not that special. I also checked the article's word count, and it's about 13,000 words. --andreasegde 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * When taking info out can we please make sure it ends up in another relevant article? For example, the above Macca quote would be helpful in the song's actual article. If it's general Wings info for example, can we make sure it still ends up in the article for Wings? LuciferMorgan 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bugger, I forgot about that. Bugger, bugger, bugger.... Can you retrieve any? No, that's my job. Bugger. --andreasegde 13:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The info can easily be retrieved by checking the edit history. I'll take a look later when I got time to see if there's anything else that can be used in a "daughter" article - I wouldn't worry Andreas, you're kicking ass with the article anyway. LuciferMorgan 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lucifer. (I hate to say that I was asked to do it before). I've started to do it (honest) even putting 'Notes' and 'References' into the smaller articles. BTW, Macca's 70s reads, and looks, a lot smoother now, methinks... --andreasegde 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The 2000s needs a clean. Anyone fancy getting the mop and bucket out? --andreasegde 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Done a lot of it.

Macca's 'porky-pies'
I don't get this: Macca says that he broke up Wings because he didn't want to tour, but he released (the solo) McCartney II before Lennon's death. "Wings resumed activity in 1980" (after his 2nd solo album)... Methinks he had decided to disband Wings before Lennon's death, and used it as an excuse. He never reformed Wings when he started to tour again... "Back to the Egg" (last Wings album) also had no hit singles, and he released that 'christmas thingy' as Macca solo. "The game is afoot, my dear Watson." Too harsh on Macca? Kick me where it hurts... --andreasegde 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the above deserves a proper reply. BlueKangaroo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.165.200 (talk • contribs)


 * And I think you do not have any right whatsoever, to leave this remark directed at a jocular post left by the editor who brought this article up to Good Article Status Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bravo. Tvoz 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would that be Lizzie Bravo, one of the famed Apple Scruffs? Raymond Arritt 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Afraid Lizzie was there before my first pilgrimage, although only by a few years. Tvoz 18:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit
Article has a quite good basis but needs copyedit, especially including:
 * consistent date format: day month year, e.g., 9 October, 1940
 * careful trimming of unnecessary words
 * The article is too long, but that's already been noted. Raymond Arritt 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for Raymond Arritt, LuciferMorgan, and for everybody else: Should the song/album titles be so: Song, "Song", or "Song" ?? (Somebody throw a towel in the ring for me - I'm knackered....) --andreasegde 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote for "Song" as it's the form used in The Beatles. I especially dislike the double-emphasis form (quotes and italics, as in "Song"). Raymond Arritt 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Song" for song titles, Album for album titles. That's the Wikipedia way. --kingboyk 06:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol - Wait a minute... what do you mean by "quite good"? I have been reliably informed that this article is "kicking rectum". :)) --andreasegde 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that bloke that has a girl's name. --Andrew Edge 02:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who's confused -- is it you, or me? ;-) Raymond Arritt 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good, that's all sorted then. OK boys, back to class. --Mr Hornby 14:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Word count
Roughly 12,500. --Sir Sean de Garde 16:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Talk page should be archived as well... --Sir Sean de Garde 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose (if the size becomes a serious problem - sigh...) there is stuff in The Quarrymen (304 words) that could be moved, and some of The Beatles stuff, like the condom, groups of guitars are on the way out etc... Making a new article called McCartney's family life/wives could be created as well. --andreasegde 17:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Size is already a problem. The "Family life" and "Art, writing and classical music" sections could be trimmed way down -- they're worth having, but in current form are disproportionately long. Raymond Arritt 17:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Trimming down means we're getting rid of interesting stuff, so all please make sure the info ends up in other appropriate articles. LuciferMorgan 17:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Macca / Radio Times
There is a feature in this (next) weeks RT re The La'. I will give it a read to see if it adds anything (hopefully topical) to the article - or any related ones. However, I don't want to add anything unnecessary/trivial.LessHeard vanU 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing of note that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere.LessHeard vanU 11:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting and moving
'''As LuciferMorgan has pointed out, it is imperative that anything that is deleted is moved to relevant articles - when possible. (I refer to the Jane Asher section). The concert at the Royal Albert Hall was organised by the BBC, but it was not moved to Asher's article (which needs more input). I know it's a pain, but it has to be done.''' --andreasegde 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the thing is, it improves other Beatles related articles then. LuciferMorgan 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, everything deleted has to be relocated elsewhere? Every trivial little detail? I can foresee a situation where people keep shuffling these things back and forth. Google for "mathom". Raymond Arritt 20:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's a piece of information that will make an article worth reading, it is worthwhile. Asher's article needs more information (as well the in-line citation that was also deleted from Macca). It doesn't mean you have to organise the other articles, but just put it in there somewhere, and it will be organised by someone who is interested in it. --andreasegde 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I spent a lot of time reading the books and putting the citations in there, so to see them deleted leaves me feeling somewhat disgruntled. If the original writers thought they were worthy, then who are we to argue? --andreasegde 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a real demon for conciseness and focus. (At work I'm famous for putting a big red X through entire pages.) I'm trying to put myself in the position of someone who isn't a crazed überfan like I am, and who might not be interested in every minute detail such as who played tambourine on "I Am The Walrus" (it was Paul, btw) or that Barry Miles's address in London was 15 Hanson Street. It's all a matter of judgment. Please don't take it disgruntledly - if you think I've gone overboard on conciseness and deleted something important, add it back in. I bet that between the two of us we can strike a good balance. Raymond Arritt 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you, Raymond Arritt, but I refer you to the point I made below, about moving, and places to move them to. (Barry Miles also has an article) Could we create more new articles? If we had one (or two) more Macca-related articles, we could easily lose 1,000 words. --andreasegde 04:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Miles' address has gone (with citation, of course) to his own article. --andreasegde 04:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Listy
Article reads repetitively listy in places. "In 2000", "In 1999" etc. etc. - can you see what I'm referring to? This might need addressing. LuciferMorgan 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed -- it's on my to-do list. Raymond Arritt 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I also think that's a very good point, LuciferMorgan. --andreasegde 00:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wings
The Wings' section could be heavily trimmed, and a lot of stuff moved (with citations) to the Wings' article. --andreasegde 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Heather Mills' section could also be trimmed. --andreasegde 01:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Loads of things could be trimmed - we won't have an article soon enough! LuciferMorgan 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's recommendation for maximum article length is 6000 to 10,000 words. In its present form, the article is about 12,000 words. An article considerably longer than the recommended maximum is in no danger of disappearing soon! Raymond Arritt 01:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The article length is now about 11,500. --andreasegde 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been trimming Lady Mucca (and moving citations as well). 500 to 1,000 more words and we're in for the kill... (Sorry, Sir Macca, for using a comment about killing things "with a face"). --andreasegde 17:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut, cut, cut
The main problem seems to be is that we have to delete/move 1,000 words to other articles, but there are not enough articles to move them to. (I think that this must be a new problem for Wikipedians...) What new 'Macca-related' articles can we create to get around this problem? (Fork articles? It's a forking problem...)
 * McCartney's family?
 * McCartney's drug use?
 * McCartney and art/literature?
 * McCartney's use of indoor plumbing facilities (with guitar)? :)

(Good grief, I wish I had known about this size thing becoming a problem before I started balancing the books on my knees... :)

--andreasegde 18:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting on forking:


 * I vote for a separate article on the art/literature stuff. Let's face it, most people are interested in Paul because of his accomplishments in pop music, plus maybe some personal background (like family and drug use). We could have a brief mention of his work in non-pop fields that points to to the spinoff article or articles. Raymond Arritt 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with forking his art/literature stuff. --andreasegde 04:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not particularly happy at losing any entire section, but if one has to be reduced to a summary it would have to be that one. --kingboyk 06:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would leave a summary, but it would reduce the article size. I think the article is brilliant, but we have to cut, cut, cut. Oh, the pain...  --andreasegde 06:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

10,991 words so far. Maybe it would be possible without forking? (View of crossed fingers, legs and arms...) --andreasegde 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

10,776........ I seem to be spending a lot of time creating "Notes" and "References" on other pages. All those lovely citations are being given away for free - Oh, how my heart bleeds... :)) --andreasegde 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am starting to think it is possible to cut 770 words. Am I talking to myself? --andreasegde 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes you are... --Sir Sean de Garde 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, now, boys, clean the blackboard and straighten the chairs. We'll have no disturbances here in this local school... --Mr Hornby 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, sod off. --Andrew Edge 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Word count
10,694. It's coming down, said the bishop to the actress... --andreasegde 18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

10,480. It's decreasing in size, said the actress to the bishop... --Sir Sean de Garde 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

10,316. It's decreasing to its accepted size. --Mr Hornby 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

10,265. 'Effin Nora, It's looking possible to get it down to 10,000. --Him with the girl's name 21:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No more word cuts I vote. To hell with cutting more stuff out, and let's address prose. If prose is ok, it's off to FAC I reckon. LuciferMorgan 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, albeit hesitatingly, because this 6,000 to 10,000 words rule seems to dominate the subject. We can chop a mere 265 words with no damage to the prose, and then put it up for review. I personally think the prose is good (ouch!) apart from the "In 2004" bits, which LuciferMorgan rightly talked about as being irritating. --andreasegde 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

10,067, BTW. --andreasegde 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 10,034. Snip, snip snip. Something for the weekend, sir? --andreasegde 06:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

9,954. Right, that's it. The funny thing is, 10,000 is exactly the amount one is allowed to earn per year (in Euros) before paying tax. --andreasegde 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

attaboy
andreasegde, you're doing great... trimming needless words without affecting content. William Strunk would be proud. Raymond Arritt 08:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 9,819 now. I'm gonna stop cutting. Maybe some more references for the odd line here and there that doesn't have them... (BTW, I got the Strunk book as a Xmas present three years ago, but I haven't really read it - I suppose I should... :) --andreasegde 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 9,801 - No... 9,774. I haven't cut any content - just cleaned little things up a bit. --andreasegde 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in an edit summary - if you still need to cut, I wonder if you really need exact dates in much of the article - month and year might well suffice, and you'd save some characters. (FOr example, do we really need to know that it was 13 April 1965 that he bought a house? Wouldn't it be enough to know it was April 1965? Just a thought. (By the way, I think being forced to cut this way is not necessarily compatible with having top-notch material, and I therefore don't particularly agree with this WIki policy. BUt that's just my opinion.) Tvoz 08:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Class Report
The year is coming to an end, and I am sure all of the pupils will look back at the last term with pride. Their co-operation has gained the respect of the whole school, and is a shining example to us all. Mr Lake will now play a medley of Beat songs on his organ - if his bellows are working. --Mr Hornby 19:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FA
Is someone going to put this up up for a "Featured Article", or an FA (Fcu*k All)? WE don't want to do it, because it would seem too biased, and we're team-handed. --andreasegde, Sir Sean de Garde, Mr Hornby, him with the girl's name, and 'Privet Hedge' 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone can place an article for FA. Whoever puts it up though is expected to address people's concerns. I nominate you (Andreas) to put it up for FA. If not, I guess I'll have to, but I don't have time to address people's concerns so someone else would have to watch the FAC page. LuciferMorgan 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, the article's listy nature which I mentioned earlier hasn't been addressed yet. LuciferMorgan 00:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good-o. I'll watch the FAC page, but I don't want to put it up. Now, how can we deal with this listy thing? --andreasegde 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By making it unlisty. LuciferMorgan 04:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also the "To do" section above needs addressing - or do we want to give FAC commentators reasons to stop the article being FA? LuciferMorgan 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Listy list
The decade sections from 1970 on each start out with a -- guess what -- list of albums that Paul released. In the interest of delistification, how about if we delete these? Most of the albums are mentioned in the discussion that follows, and we already have a discography. Raymond Arritt 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it.... --andreasegde 12:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They shouldn't have been added in the first place.... rid of them. LuciferMorgan 22:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added them, but I deserve to be slapped with a fish for doing so. (Ouch!) --andreasegde 17:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

linda
Just wondering about the "marriage to Linda" beginning: he phoned her in September 68 and asked her to "fly to London" to do what? They got married 6 mos later, but these 2 sentences don't flow properly - what's missing? They lived together, they realized they were in love, something. (I know you're trying to cut, but it has to make sense, no?) Tvoz 07:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. MCartney stayed with Linda in New York at some time back then, and enjoyed doing the dishes and walking around New York without being hassled - which is later what attracted Lennon to the 'Big Apple'. I'll look it up. --andreasegde 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Stable?
Is the article presently stable in terms of content, or are there still sections that will be shunted to other articles (or deleted)? Some of the lifestyle stuff like "recreational drug use" needs copyedit and I'd rather not do it if the material will be moved or deleted. Raymond Arritt 18:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's less than 10,000 words now (9,519) so that's not a problem anymore. If there's anything that needs cutting (without removing content) then go for it. It's good that people look at it in a different light, which will help a lot before hordes of others descend upon it. --andreasegde 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Adjectives and confusion
I have a lot of trouble with this: "Mull of Kintyre" became the highest-selling record in British chart history, and remained so until Michael Jackson's mega album Thriller in 1984. This confuses a single with an album, and uses the horrible adjective 'mega'. --andreasegde 20:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I edited that bit recently, but didn't write the original material. Presumably it hinges on the word "record" -- my interpretation is that the single MoK was the highest-selling record until 1984, when the album "Thriller" became the highest selling record; i.e., sales of the album "Thriller" exceeded those for the single MoK. Is the latter point correct? Raymond Arritt 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't confuse the sales of an album with a single. The people at 'Guinness' have very strict views about that... :))

"Formed the band Wings with his late wife"? She wasn't dead when he formed the band. --andreasegde 20:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a tough one! Obviously she wasn't dead then; but "with his wife" could imply his current wife (Heather Mills, at least for now). I thought about "his then-wife", but that often implies the couple has separated. Maybe "with his first wife"? Raymond Arritt 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest being very Wikipedian - which is to be very, very dry, and to state the facts as they were at the time. Mr Strunk would agree with us. :) --andreasegde 22:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

McCartney the II
Macca came second in a poll to list the greatest living icon in Britain. David Attenborough came first, which is a fair result. --andreasegde 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as neither have to put on "plaster of paris" make-up and hold stupid poses for people waiting to board the London Eye, then fine. (As far as I am concerned, though, Morrissey can be dipped into fast setting concrete and dropped off the nearby pier - and I am a fan of his first bands music, I should add).LessHeard vanU 13:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Something
It says that for the Concert For George that Paul played Something on ukulele unaccompanied, this however is incorrect. He began the song unacompanied and was joined by the rest of the musicians part way through.


 * If that's true, then fix it, don't just say so here. (I remember the uke but don;t remember the rest too clearly so I'll leave it to someone who can confirm this.) Tvoz 20:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Paul played the song unaccompanied on his 2002-3 World Tour. At the Concert For George he was joined by the band after opening the song solo. Keithmall 12:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Check it out on youtube (if it's still there) andreasegde 18:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought Macca played acoustic guitar on "Something" and that it was Joe Brown who played the Uke and sang, "I'll See You In My Dreams" at the end of the concert - if you look at Brown's article, there's a piccy of him from the concert playing a Uke. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul definitely played a uklele for "something". He told the story before about how George loved to play uklele and then one night at a dinner party, Paul said "look what I can play on a uklele" and he played "Something" and George was very impressed. Uklele.--Crestville 15:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah your'e right Joe, I confused the songs, I thought Macca played the Uke on Something else, what did he play guitar on? Cheers! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 15:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it, he puts the Uke down, and picks up a guitar and Clapton returns the song to the correct tempo and finishes it off, I Knew I had a picture of him playing guitar on that song in my mind! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

MBE
It stands for "Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire", and is what Sir Paul is wihin an Order of Chivalry. It's not a thing, and it can't be "awarded", any more than soldiers can be "awarded a Corporal" when they're promoted. He is an MBE, he doesn't have one. So stop changing it. Proteus (Talk) 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course he has one, it's a Medal that is awarded, an award that places him into an order of Chivalry, and please do not issue orders. Thank you. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 19:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I saw The Queen last night, and have spent time in England, I don't claim to be an expert on chivalry, especially of the "most excellent" kind. (And I always thought it was merely "Member of the Order of the British Empire" - but am not surprised at the superlative.) But I do recall that Lennon returned his MBE, which would surely mean the medal which he had been awarded. (Meanwhile, I see that reference to this has disappeared on John Lennon although I am certain it was there at some point, so I am going to investigate that.) So I'd have to say that Vera, Chuck and even Dave have it right. Tvoz 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He returned the medal (as a gesture of protest). He continued to be a Member of the Order (which is why he still has "MBE" after his name in our article, because he was still an MBE when he died). Proteus (Talk) 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The medal is merely an indication of what he is. What you're saying is akin to saying (continuing my example) that people can be "awarded a Corporal" because new Corporals are given chevrons to denote their rank. I suggest you actually go and read something about the honours system (and the Order of the British Empire in particular) before spouting any more ignorant and misinformed rubbish. (NB: Using the BBC as a source on chivalry is going to get you precisely nowhere. That article merely shows they can't follow their own style guide, which says: "People do not get a CBE, OBE or MBE (Commander, Officer and Member of the Order of the British Empire). They are appointed. They can be made a peer or knight, or receive a peerage or knighthood. Medals such as the George Medal are conferred.") Proteus (Talk) 22:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Proteus, you may wish to i) see my comment on your talk page, and ii) moderate your language. You may indeed be right, and we will soon know because we have an instant expert in the matter of the George Medal within these very pages, but your attitude is not that expected of a Wikipedian. If you persist, I shall have to waggle my eyebrows at you!LessHeard vanU 22:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I (still) have no idea what you're talking about. Having a GM no more makes him an expert on the honours system than owning a car makes me a mechanical engineer. Proteus (Talk) 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cars are commonplace - think aeroplanes. To acquire a PPL one has to have an understanding of the mechanics of the craft (you can fly a 'plane without knowing any of this, but landing it is trickier). I'm not saying a recipient of a GM needs to ingest Burkes Peerage or works of etiquette or whatever, but they usually get a little insight how the Honours system works. I also believe that what you are unable to understand is that someone is trying to talk nicely to you whilst disagreeing - it is what an old fart like me thinks of a manners.LessHeard vanU 23:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree- it's amusing to see someone have a discussion on chivalry and honors, and say things like "before spouting any more ignorant and misinformed rubbish" - not exactly in keeping with WP:CIVIL. But then I'm sure if you were directing that in part to me, you are amused right back, seeing as how uncivilized we Americans are. Tvoz 23:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't directed at you. Proteus (Talk) 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then to whom pray, was it directed? Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You. Proteus (Talk) 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And you sir, have the nerve to speak of chivalry? Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fucked if I know/care if it was awarded or not, but I've been away a while and I fancy a scrap. Fact of the matter is there are ways of doing things on wikipedia. If you can't convince us it was not awarded then don't change it. Proteus, with all due repect you have clearly failed to put foreward a convincing argument because no-one agrees with you. As such, you now have two options: 1) go away and gather more convincing evidence with which to put forward your point so as to increase the chances of reaching a consensus in your favour 2) leave it alone and continue to contribute in a more constructive manner. Here are some options which are not open to you: 1) the pig headed changing of articles, ignoring the judgement of several other valued contributers; 2) petty name calling; 3) disagreeing with a fireman; 4) rape. Vera, Chuck and indeed Dave are all valued contributers to The Beatles' pages, calling him an idiot is more likely to turn the tide against you than to win over your peers ("he called my friend an idiot - I like him!"); and, depending on whether you live in Liverpool and just how diligent Vera is, may see you perish in a household fire. God bless now, and let that be an end to it.--Crestville 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC) P.s. Some yanks are cool.


 * I've cited the BBC style guide saying exactly what I'm saying (the document itself if you want it), which I notice no one's addressed at all. And if you edit articles based on which editors you like rather than what's actually correct might I suggest it's you who aren't quite familiar with the "ways of doing things on Wikipedia", and propose that you go and find somewhere on the internet that doesn't care quite so much about accuracy? Proteus (Talk) 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I think Vera's in London, but still. Tvoz 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't go on what WE think, but ever think no one's bothered to read your stuff because you're cynical, cold and pig headed? As it happens I agree with you on the word point but find your attitude so disagreeable I felt the need to defend Vera Chuck and Dave. Think about that. Sorry Tvoz, I never wrote the page on Vera. My bad.--Crestville 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So you reverted me because you don't like me? Given what's happened here I don't particularly like Vera, but I'm not about to open his contributions page and rollback everything he's edited for the past week... Proteus (Talk) 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted you because you were taking a contentious issue into your own hands without reaching a convincing consensus. Even if I do agree with you it's at least 2 vs 3. BTW, Vera has been nothing short of civil with you. Do you not at all get the impression from contributers more reasonable that I that you and your attitude are the problem?--Crestville 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes I do. I'm leaving this now. Sort it out yourselves, however you like. I need a break. And I sincerely apologise for being rude to you all. I'm not really like this, I promise. Proteus (Talk) 23:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring any possible hint of sarcasm, cheers. We'll take your argument into account and reach a conlusion on whether that word should be "appointed" or "awarded" (FA!FA!FA!). I'm sure you're lovely and we'd love to have you back, just cheer up mate! God bless.--Crestville 00:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, Proteus is correct. - Kittybrewster 00:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's what I think too, but after al that are you really just going to change it without any proof or dicussion?--Crestville 00:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? The discussion has occurred. - Kittybrewster 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kittybrewster is correct. If, as Proteus said, the authorative reference says that an MBE is bestowed, or awarded, or chucked with great violence at the recipient then that is what should be said in the article. Consensus doesn't come into it. Agreeing what the authorative reference is may be a matter of debate, and I suggest cool heads should (in a few days, perhaps) have a look see and edit - with a note/comment here.LessHeard vanU 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Proteus cited BBC. Nobody has cited anything contradicting them. Let's go with that. - Kittybrewster 08:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, why should we just "go" with something that they don't use? Merry Christmas, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 11:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because their style guide asserts this is correct and any failure to follow it is clearly an error. Besides which they do use it - example as does The Times - example - Kittybrewster 13:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ten Orders, One Appointment: Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 14:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this example is an excellent instance of a failure to understand the honours system. An OBE is not an MBE and the use of the word Order in this page is not a denial of the fact that people are appointed to membership (at whatever level) of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (or whatever). - Kittybrewster 16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Now the CABINET OFFICE Fails to understand the Honours System? This I'm afraid, just beggers belief! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 16:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I think you have misunderstood the page. Having said which, Cherie Booth who should know better, makes frequent major errors herself. - Kittybrewster 16:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well as usual proteus was quite correct if a touch blunt for his own good. The Knight bachelor is not an order of knighthood so is carefully just listed as an appointment and as Kitty says this in no way alters the fact that the others are appointed to their respective orders. Seems rather than just be correct based on good citation provided the article has been edited to fudge around the issue. Alci12 16:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You are awarded or honoured by the monarch with an MBE medal. If it is an honour which also enrols you into an Order (as in this instance) then you become a member of that Order. You may, of course, return your medal in protest but it is a meaningless stunt because the only person who can overturn your honour and remove you from the Order concerned is the monarch. All knights are "dubbed" or created, not 'appointed'. They must all kneel to be knighted, regardless of Order. There is a Register of Knights Bachelors and some have Letters Patents. Lastly, some Orders have knights. The authority on knights is William A Shaw (1906). David Lauder 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are appointed to whichever 'order' as may given in whatever degree; the insignia and paraphenalia are given as a consequence of that appointment not the other way around. Alci12 17:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * [To David Lauder's point - edit conflict here]Ok, Macca didn't return his, so we can argue about that over on Lennon. Seems to me the text under "Awards" says what David Lauder says it should say: that he was honored by the monarch with a medal that connotes his being named a Member of the Order, yes? So I tried approaching the up-top summary slightly differently and put amended text in there just because it's easier to evaluate in situ. If it works for any or all, terrific. If not, well, we'll keep trying. Tvoz 19:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. Unfortunately David Lauder is wrong. Alci12 is right. - Kittybrewster 22:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Sorry about that. What is your authoritative source, please. David Lauder 22:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. In your own words elsewhere "You are awarded the medal though; appointed to the order. Thats what I meant to say. Sorry I wasn't all that clear." - Kittybrewster 00:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is obviously a specialist area, one which a few fans of the writer of Yesterday, Jet and The Frog Chorus could expected to be knowledgeable upon. I'm certain that the members of the Project would be happy if edits were made by those with that expertise, as long as we were told the whys and wherefores.LessHeard vanU 21:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it is common to speak of someone 'being awarded an MBE' and to refer to the insignia as 'an MBE', this is merely a convenient shorthand (3 syllables instead of 16), and as previous editors have noted, not strictly correct. One is appointed a Member of the (Most Excellent) Order of the British Empire, and subsequently invested with the insignia (which is technically a badge not a medal) prescribed by the statutes of the Order. At first reading the relevant sentence in the article at the moment seems to imply it's the other way around: On 16 October 1965, McCartney was honoured (along with the other three Beatles) by Queen Elizabeth II with MBE silver medals which connote their being named Members of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

For an authoritative source I suggest The London Gazette, in which the official announcements of British honours are made. The relevant issue for Paul McCartney's (appointment as) MBE is 12 June 1965, p18. On p10, at the start of the section, it says The Queen has been graciously pleased, on the occasion of the Celebration of Her Majesty's Birthday, to give orders for the following promotions in, and appointments to, the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire This would seem to settle the question of appointment vs award. I note in passing that the Cabinet Office also correctly distinguishes between award and appointment, see towards the bottom of this page Notes on Awards for Gallantry in the Order of the British Empire:

Appointments to, or promotions in, the Order of the British Empire and awards of the British Empire Medal, ... Secondly, McCartney's appointment to the Order was dated 12 June 1965. If the article is correct he was invested with the insignia on 16 October 1965. (A little digging reveals that that date was incorrect, it should be the 26th. The caption of a photograph of the fans outside the palace in The Times, Wednesday, Oct 27, 1965; pg. 22 reads Enthusiasts v. reinforcements outside Buckingham Palace when the Beatles received their M.B.E. insignia yesterday.) The sequence of these two events would seem to address the issue of whether the membership leads to insignia or vice versa. I would suggest the sentence be reworded as something like

On 12 June 1965 McCartney and the three other Beatles were appointed Members of the Order of the British Empire (MBE), and subsequently received their insignia from the Queen at an investiture at Buckingham Palace in October that year.

This would possibly be a good place to mention the controversy which surrounded the Beatles' appointment. I've just noticed the reference to the MBE in the lead, for which I would suggest something like

''McCartney was appointed a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) on 12 June 1965 by Queen Elizabeth II. He was knighted on 11 March 1997.''

--Dr pda 06:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoah - hold on! Bloomin' eck and by crikey, what's all this about? Alright, sod it, I'll put me two pennorth in:

He was awarded the medal, and became a member of the order. Does anyone disagree with that? (Ouch!) andreasegde 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Er....? (raises hand) Dr pda is quoting The London Gazette then, if it says that they were appointed to the order, appointed is what he was - and it is a badge, not a medal, that signifies the membership (about the poshest membership badge available)!LessHeard vanU 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dr pda got it spot on and suggested very good ways of expressing it. There are posher badges around (see British honours system ) but Sir Paul has done OK. - Kittybrewster 19:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Check this out: Guide to the Honours Who wants to disagree with the BBC? Also in Dictionary.com:Awarded - Appointed

“British honours are awarded on merit, for exceptional achievement or service”

1. "People are nominated.." 2. “A number of these orders for chivalry are made…” 3. “peerages regularly created by the Sovereign”. 4. “A life peer becomes a baron…” 5. “The orders are now awarded mainly to civilians and service personnel for public service or other distinctions…” 6. “Today this honour is still awarded in recognition of services to the royal family…” 7. “This is awarded for distinguished service to the police force…” 8. “This honour is given to firemen…”

Can we now agree on “awarded”?andreasegde 14:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Honours are indeed awarded, but the honour which is awarded may be the appointment to a rank in an Order of Chivalry. Let me try and explain more fully:


 * This whole issue is a minor point in the context of an article about Paul McCartney, but in order to have the best possible article we should use the correct terminology, whatever that may be.
 * It is very common to find references to people being awarded an MBE. It is slightly less common to find references to people being appointed as Members of the Order of the British Empire, or appointed as MBE.
 * One can find examples of both usages in reputable sources. For example the BBC, as noted immediately above (and elsewhere), uses the award terminology, but the style guide for BBC journalists (on p56 of this 92 page PDF), quoted near the beginning of this discussion, says "People do not get a CBE, OBE or MBE (Commander, Officer and Member of the Order of the British Empire). They are appointed. (The BBC apparently disagrees with the BBC!). In The Times one can also find examples of both usages (even in the articles talking about the Beatles receiving the honour).
 * The fact that in the case of the MBE the honour is associated with receiving a (single) physical badge makes the former terminology natural, by analogy with receiving a medal (which is incontrovertibly awarded). However when one considers the higher grades of the order this analogy/terminology becomes less sure. Take for example the top grade, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire (GBE). When (if!) one receives such an honour, one is entitled not only to a badge, but also a gold collar, a jewelled star, a riband (sash), a mantle and possibly a hat. What then is the "GBE" which is awarded?
 * The way in which people are honoured has changed over time. Today it is more common to receive a prize, a medal, a certificate etc, which is often accompanied by a physical object. In the past (and still today for some of the older honours) it involved becoming a member of a select group (Until 1725 there were only the Order of the Garter, with 24 members and the Order of the Thistle with 16, in addition to knighthoods and peerages). As a member of such a group one was required to follow certain rules and wear certain clothing/insignia. As time went on it became desirable to honour greater numbers of people, so new orders were created, and more levels were added to existing orders. Today people are still honoured by being appointed to one of the several ranks or grades within an Order of Chivalry, such as the Order of the British Empire (which is no longer quite so select a group), but the wearing of insignia is now generally restricted to the most formal occasions.
 * The holders of a medal have nothing in common, except the piece of metal on a ribbon (and of course the personal qualities which led to their being awarded it). The members of an Order of Chivalry share membership in a corporate body, their membership of which is symbolised by various insignia.
 * The use of an abbreviation such as MBE lends itself to saying awarded an MBE, but this does not work so well if one uses the full name: awarded a Member of the Order of the British Empire. Indeed it is more natural to speak of being made a Member, or being appointed a Member, etc. Since an abbreviation is only a shorthand for the full name, whatever terminology is used with the abbreviation should be logically consistent with the use of the full name.
 * Finally, the place one might expect to find a definitive example of usage is the official announcement of the honours in The London Gazette. As noted above, this refers to appointments to and promotions in the Order.


 * For the above reasons I believe that appointed should be used instead of awarded in the context of the MBE in this article. (I hope the above, rather long-winded answer explains my reasoning a bit better.) Dr pda 19:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent research! Sometimes brevity gets in the way of clarity - so the length of your notes are more than justified. Davidpatrick 20:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. The definitive reference is The London Gazette which, as an instrument of the State, uses the appropriate terminology.LessHeard vanU 20:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am most impressed with the trouble Dr pda has gone to in explaining his reasoning which is in accordance with that of all the experts in this field. I suspect we have concensus. - Kittybrewster 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhhh... concenusus. Now that's what I call a nice word. More power to its elbow, as the saying goes. andreasegde 20:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

if Paul Mccartney is onle a member of the order of the british empire, why is he permitted to be known as SIR Paul Mccartney? This is too low a rank to be known as SIR.


 * Because he is a Knight Bachelor Lt. Gonville {volley fire at 100 yards) Bromhead VC


 * I got an MBE for Christmas. Cost a bloody fortune. Do I win £5? Actually, fuck your measley £5 - I can afford to buy honours! The Rt. Hon. Lord Hodgson of Crestville MBE, BA, DPP, KGB, TCP, BBC, DDT, ABC, POV, OTT, BSE, Polonium 2-10 and Bar


 * LOL! Vera Duckworth Chas & Dave

Do They Know Its Christmas?
Paul McCartney did not contribute backing vocals to Do They Know Its Christmas by Band Aid. He did make a short spoken word contribution to the B Side

Keithmall 22:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He doesn't appear according to the Wiki entry for the song, but it does say that Bowie does (he doesn't). Is it possible that the original writer meant (or misunderstood) that Macca appears on the "back" of the single (the b-side of the old style vinyl format) speaking? In truth, Macca does appear on the record, but not the recording.LessHeard vanU 23:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my screwup -- I didn't double-check sources. Sorry. Raymond Arritt 23:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, Big Man (as in "...it takes a big man to admit he was wrong.")LessHeard vanU 23:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no reference anywhere to the title song from the movie Spies Like Us. Sorry if this is in the wrong spot. Madman762

He played Bass on the 2004 version.--Crestville 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)