Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)

GA Talk for article
This should be put up for GA again.--andreasegde (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold
✅ --andreasegde (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅ --andreasegde (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅ --andreasegde (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅--andreasegde (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅--andreasegde (tal ✅ --[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅ --andreasegde (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅--andreasegde (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅--andreasegde (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅ --andreasegde (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅--andreasegde (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅--andreasegde (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅--andreasegde (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) ✅--andreasegde (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "on the The Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper" album." - why the quotation marks on the album?
 * "Barry Miles writes in his book Many Years From Now" - is this necessary? Just say what happened...
 * "According to his diaries, Mal Evans may have also contributed to the song." - change EL to a wlink here
 * Eeek...overuse of dashes. Can you cut down on this?
 * Format dates in the Recording section, and merge with the prior section if there's no more info available
 * "and with a rockier feel. " - can you reword this...?
 * "It was originally released in the UK on 1 June 1967, and in the US on 2 June 1967 on the "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" LP." - format dates, put album in italics not quotes
 * Several of the songs wlinked in the Release section have been wlinked previously
 * "The song, starting with "It was twenty years ago" was chosen amongst others to commemorate that Live 8 took place approximately twenty years after Live Aid." - needs ref
 * "with McCartney in the audience.[23][24][25] " - does this need 3 refs?
 * Some of the song info in the "Other performances" could be dubbed OR...
 * "On 23 May 2007" - format date
 * I don't think the "Memorabilia" section is necessary in this article

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do. --andreasegde (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thank you, Dihydrogen Monoxide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreasegde (talk • contribs) 12:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Who played lead guitar on the track?
This article list George as lead guitarist, the album article implies Paul rerecorded the lead guitar himself; I don't think they can both be right - I'll do some research to try and confirm who played lead on the released track. Apepper (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Credits section was unsourced. I've updated it based on Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head. He says that Paul played lead guitar on the full version, and George played lead on the reprise. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Timing of single
The timing is shown as 4:46 which is misleading. The single has two songs on the A side, which total 4:46 - the timing of this song should be 2:02, ie same as album version (they are, after all, identical). -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding live performances
Three of the Beatles (Paul, George and Ringo) plus Eric Clapton performed this song at Clapton's wedding party. In her memoirs Patty Boyd Harrison Clapton wrote that John Lennon had not been invited, and that she heard later that John Lennon would have attended if he had been invited. She is sorry that this best chance for a Beatles reunion was missed, and that with Lennon's death late in 1980 all further chance of a reunion was lost. C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Genre
This source here says that sgt. pepper's lonely hearts club band is a "heavy rock" song with "stinging hard rock guitar" and "funky psychedelic rock style". Please consider changing the genre, because if "yellow submarine" counts as "rock" here, how come both songs are under the same genre?84.108.248.109 (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"on the the Beatles' album of the same name"
Now, I know that questions involving the words "the" and "Beatles" can be contentious, but this one bugs me every time I rescan Wikipedia for "the the" errors. Wouldn't the lead sentence read more naturally without the first "the"? -- John of Reading (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Acknowledging the 1978 single release in the lead infobox is certainly better than having another box. 's 30 June test edit seems like a good way to handle it. However, the use of additional  and details besides the year in the chronology (1976, UK) will cause errors during the merge. It would be better to convert the infobox (and other similar boxes) to the new format so this is not a problem.

Also, why is it necessary for additional infoboxes for the Bee Gees and U2 versions? Infoboxes are supposed to present key facts as discussed in the article. The Bee Gees aren't even mentioned and U2 gets three sentences. These were re-added with the comment "they were there for a reason, each one represents a different song, recording, or release". If the fact that a rendition exists is a valid reason for adding an infobox, song articles would become ridiculously overwhelmed with boxes. Why not add Hendrix (he was the first to perform it live) and the others mentioned? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Re the additional  s – yeah, that's just to avoid having a second Beatles singles category. Will try the new format and see how it goes.


 * We should absolutely lose the Bee Gees infobox; it's all I could do, not to ditch it when making that test edit. I see a problem with removing the McCartney/U2 one, because of the singles chronologies. Or does that not matter – can a chronology be broken and pick up as & when? I'll answer my own question: perhaps we should consider removing singles (and albums) chronologies when the same details appear in a navbox. I know in the past I've waved a flag for album chronologies in Infobox album, but now I'm starting to wonder why it is that we give chronologies such licence in music articles. JG66 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A "single chronological chain" seems like a good idea, but, in practice, not all of an artist's singles (or albums) are noteworthy. To include something just to "maintain the integrity of chains" goes against NSONGS and COVERSONG. The latter should expanded to include infoboxes: "discussion of and an infobox for a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:
 * the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song,
 * the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS.
 * It would cut down on the overuse of infoboxes, which give song articles a cluttered, amateurish look. I considered the navbox alternative, but it would be a tough sell. Maybe start with limiting the worst of the overuses of Extra chronologies. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100121102205/http://www.radiocity.com/events/change-begins-within-409.html to http://www.radiocity.com/events/change-begins-within-409.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202072727/http://www.beatletracks.com/bt45s.html to http://www.beatletracks.com/bt45s.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428192941/http://news.softpedia.com/news/Paul-McCartney-In-The-Guinness-Book-of-Records-5167.shtml to http://news.softpedia.com/news/Paul-McCartney-In-The-Guinness-Book-of-Records-5167.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Suitability of reference used in article
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:BEATLES. Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC) —Ojorojo (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes II
I ran a test to fix the errors, probably caused by the use of two misc (notice the audio sample didn't show either). Also year must be used for the first chrono to override that automatically generated by released. The US chrono problem is that Extra chronology only adds "quote marks" for single, because it was never designed to be used with song and italicizes the types in Infobox album/doc/type. I don't see a way around this. Also, there's no way to suppress the auto quote marks in the chronos for the PM/U2 box (is it really needed for three sentences?); they will always be added before and after the complete entry. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I saw the test edit, – thanks for trying. It did at least fix the automated date (to the correct 1978) in the first chronology, I noticed.
 * I've hardly been shy about expressing my dislike of these singles chronologies, as a feature that unnecessarily extends an infobox down the page (this one being a prime example because of the medley aspect of the single) and offers inessential information that can be found at the end-of-article singles navbox, anyway. Given what you say above, I wonder if by adhering to the instruction I cited from Template:Infobox song – If an album track was later released as a single, use the most notable or best known. For example, "Stairway to Heaven" was released as a promo single in several markets and as a digital single in 2007, but became best known as a song from Led Zeppelin's fourth album. – there's a way to legitimately avoid these chronologies and thereby solve two problems. Unless someone's willing to invest the time to ensure that singles chronologies can be applied with song, of course. The situation you mention about auto quote marks in U2 with Mac credit (it's in the next entry in that chronology also, I see), well, that should be fixable, you'd think, because it is single there.
 * After finding I'd left things less than perfect here, with regard to formatting, I've edited other relevant song articles without any attempt to incorporate the singles chronologies – eg, at Julia and Back in the USSR. I'll see how other editors react over the next 12 hours. My feeling is we should ditch the chronos for these 1976-onward singles – they're not relevant to the band's career, after all – and ensure the alt cover art and music samples have a home (if samples have to be housed in the infobox too). But I'd be lying if I said that perspective wasn't informed by my opposition to having these singles chronologies anyway ... Thanks again, JG66 (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing the later issues from the infobox follows the existing guidance for B-side, released, and format: "Generally, later releases or in secondary markets, reissues, etc., should only be included in the body of the article." Plus, there already is a Beatles singles navbox that should be able to handle all the chronos. Maybe the "classic" singles could retain the infobox chronos for the original singles, but the re-releases, reissues, etc., really don't need it. Infobox album advises only details about the original album be included – no other countries, labels, reissues, etc. – so the practice is followed in other music articles. Maybe bring it up on the Beatles project page or just be bold.
 * During the infobox overhaul, I suggested something like the B-side way of surpressing the auto song quotes for the chrono, but was told that it couldn't be done (something to do with all the other auto functions). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying – all good stuff. When I've got more time, over the next day, I'll remove the poorly formatted chronologies I left behind and then present the situation at the project page. More I've thought about it (and your comments support this), there is no reason to treat the post-break-up EMI singles as if the Beatles were an ongoing concern – none of the releases from 1976 were authorised by the former band members, quite the opposite; and, while I think it goes much too far in the opposite direction, the Rolling Stones' albums chronology skips over any compilations or live albums completely, meaning there is a precedent for intervening and not affording each and every official release such reverence.
 * The only thing that still gets me is in situations like Nowhere Man (song), where I'd say the infobox should treat it as a Rubber Soul track but a US singles chronology would be appropriate within that ... Oh well. JG66 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit removing the extra chronos looks good and hopefully can be carried over to the rest of the Beatles reissues. Regarding audio samples: they don't have be in the infobox; Listen can be used to place them elsewhere, such as in a relevant section (for example). Same with extra covers and videos: if they're that important, they should be included where they are mentioned in the article. Nowhere Man poses a different problem; the fact that it was Nos. 3 & 1 in North America makes the case for type=single compelling (Y & T was released after the single, so not technically "from the album"). I tried this for The Spider and the Fly (song) (originally US album track, later UK B-side) and we'll see what happens. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just posted something at WT:BEATLES, actually, so onward and upward. Good to hear that about samples (and videos), although I have found an editor or two insisting that they be placed consistently inside infoboxes. The extra artwork does have to sit in the infobox, I believe, in that it's a condition of non-free use: the image is being used to help readers visually identify the subject of the article.
 * Yes indeed re "Nowhere Man" (one of the examples I brought up just now at WT:Beatles). Disregarding the colour/type of the infobox, I can't really get my head around that Stones example; guess I find myself thinking back to the treatment we discussed for Matchbox (song). In a way, Matchbox is a similar scenario to Nowhere Man, but of course then I realise that the latter was a major single release in the US, so (reintroducing the colour/type issue) it does make it difficult to not give it the appropriate infobox treatment. JG66 (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe your explanation will help. If you really want to explore it, several 1960s US album covers have no copyright markings. One editor was able to argue for the US cover of Are You Experienced "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1924 and 1977 without a copyright notice". It is used in several song and other articles, including the 9 February 2014 DYK. My original Capitol copies of Revolver and Paperback Writer/Rain (with picture sleeve) don't have a single date or copyright symbol, etc.
 * Spider is not ideal by any means; the previous version was closer to Matchbox, but without the chrono. I though I'd try single because a chrono for a song looks odd to me. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)