Talk:Paul McCartney/Archive 5

Postage Stamp Size Photographs
Andreasegde,

Your anal compulsion to reduce photo sizes is bizarre. I was wondering where you studied photography. I will remove my photo of Paul and Linda from the Wings section because I am tired of your infantile antics of making my photograph a postage stamp.

You win. But may I suggest that you get a life?

markestabrook Markestabrook 21:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He wouldn't do it without good reason.--Crestville 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * May I suggest something to you, Markestabrook? Sorry, but your post is filled with childish comments. "anal compulsion"? Yes, I do have a compulsion to defecate (which is normal) but I wonder what you mean, exactly. "Bizarre"? Explain, please. "I will remove my photo of Paul and Linda from the Wings section" says a lot. It seems to be your photo, but are you promoting yourself? "infantile antics"? This makes me think you wrote your post when you were angry. You may have forgotten, but Wikipedia is about prose, and not only photography, although photographs are very welcome. I do not like to win at anything; I prefer teamwork, which is when we all win. The one thing I seriously object to is your suggestion that I "get a life". I have probably had more life than you have had hot dinners. Be nice, and let's work together. andreasegde 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He appears to be the copyright holder. I hate postage stamp size pictures on Wikipedia too. Jooler 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is click on the photo, and you will see it in all its glory. Try writing something and adding in-line citations, which is what Wikipedia really needs. andreasegde 18:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not just make it big enough in the first place? Jooler 19:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just checked out Markestabrook on the web, and he is an extremely talented photographer. I love photographs, which is why I always visit the Photographers' gallery when I am in London. To take out a photo because it is not big enough to suit one's own personal viewpoint is not democratic, or helpful. I have put it back, because it deserves to be in the article. Check out, markestabrook.com andreasegde 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To Jooler: If you have large photos, it distracts from the text. Photos should accompany the text, and not overshadow it. "Wikipeda is not a magazine", as the FA zealots have often written. (They are completely, and utterly right, of course.......  :)) andreasegde 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about an increase of 50px here. Hardly a massive difference or enough to distract from the text. Jooler 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I shall start a new paragraph, because it makes my eyes water to keep flicking to the right... You are very right, Jooler, but where does it stop? 150px, 200px, 250px, 300px, 350px, and on and on. Reviewers look at 'References' first (in-line) and then at the 'flow' of the article. They don't like BIG pictures that get in the way of their review. If an article looks like a magazine it is very pleasing to read, but this thing we all work on is not that. Anyone can click on the photos and see them wonderfully displayed, so why should they be so big in the article? I prefer clicking on the photos to see them in all their glory, BTW. andreasegde 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I shall now do a test by making ALL THE PHOTOS in the wonderful Macca article 350px large. Call me a vandal, but it might make someone happy. :)) andreasegde 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just done it, and it makes my eyes water. andreasegde 19:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read WP:POINT Jooler 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And I think someone on this page needs WP:CIV PDQ Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jooler, please don't. If you had had the words at the top directed at you, you would be (not surprisingly) very annoyed, as I was. Editor Markestabrook made absolutely no previous comments on these talk pages about photo sizes before directing his tirade at me personally. If he had done that small thing, this conversation would never have taken place. Anybody that knows me on these pages can (hopefully) verify that I am helpful and a team-worker. The ethos of many Beatles' editors is based upon working together and having some fun along the way. I hate arguing with people, so I hope this conversation can move onto other (and more important) subjects. I wish you well. andreasegde 17:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Stamp designers
If other editors are unaware, Paul McCarntey is among the top three articles with the most categories at this moment. Efforts should be made to trim the categories to a reasonable level so that people can read the category list without being overwhelmed.

I have started with removing Category:Stamp designers. I saw nothing in the article about McCarney designing stamps, so I removed the category. If I am incorrect and if the category is really needed, then feel free to insert the category back into the article. Dr. Submillimeter 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You are totally right. Carry on. andreasegde 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But wasn't there a campaign to 'stamp out' The Beatles (back during the "bigger than Jesus" episode, IIRC)? Raymond Arritt 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Raymond, you are making me giggle, which makes me feel like a bloke with a girl's name. (As Crestville would have it... :) andreasegde 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - what was originally there?
Great article, but in the 1980s section the text states:

"In 1988 McCartney. released Снова в СССР, which was a collection of old Rock and roll hits - written by others - that McCartney had admired over the years. It was originally released in 1988, in the USSR, he is the most awesome singer this planet will ever seeElvis Costello (Declan Macmanus) and Juan Carlos Garcia Manzano Gandara."

I, not being an expert on the subject, have no idea what the orginal text before vandalism said; was it "featuring" or perhaps something else? I'd be much obliged if somebody who wrote the original text could come forward. Once again, well done to all concerned who've made contributions to this article. --Liamshaw 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are an expert, because you saw a stupid POV. Well done. Get rid of it, and join the project. andreasegde 22:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did it, but you can do it in future. You have our full support. andreasegde 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

McCartney vs Lennon songwriting credits
I don't know much about it, but wasn't McCartney criticized for changing the order of Lennon/McCartney penned songs on some releases after Lennon's death? This would be suitable to include.
 * It is noted in the Lennon/McCartney article. LessHeard vanU 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ps. Please sign your posts.

FAC
Hi guys, especially Andrew, sorry I've not been around to help. Article is looking great (at a glance, didn't have time to read it all hehe). Are you gonna try your luck at FAC? --kingboyk 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He did. It failed. Synopsis in recent newsletter. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK - sorry to hear about that. I guess there should be a FA failed template affixed then...? --kingboyk 22:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) It's OK, I now see that the super duper new hi tech GA template covers it. I dunno, be away for a weeks and get left behind! --kingboyk 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)