Talk:The Beatles/Achievements Discussion

OK, this is a new page for discussion of this topic
 * I think all the details should remain on the talk page or another sub page (as this one seems dedicated to discussion only). The text should be improved at that place and then intergrated as a whole into the relevant section of the article. I say this, as ive said it on the Janet Jackson and Elvis article. "Achievements" is nothing more than a posh name for "Trivia list". Intergration is key, no bullet points, pros is a must. --—  Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 02:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a big problem with converting a bulleted list into prose if it is done well. I don't agree that Achievements is the same as trivia that must be integrated into the article. How is "Achievements" any more trivia than "Awards"? Ward3001 (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dont get me wrong, I think their both trivia. A legacy section needs building which documents there awards as well as social significance.— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've currently integrated them all into the prose. The Ed Sullivan bit definitely needs to be mentioned in the same paragraph as their 1964 performance for context and notability purposes. I could use better references for these items, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure but now we have a million unsourced claims running wild in the article, we really should have worked on it before intergrating. At least before it was all together in its messy entirety, now that its been dispersed people wont feel the need to get it sourced. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that bad, since all the previous "Achievements" claims are still on the Talk page itself, and really a structured approach to them might have been more manageable in terms of traceability of information. However, before I stick a hammer through my screen and throw my keyboard out of the window, I'm going to get some spleep. And yes, I did mean that. -- Rodhull andemu  03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And snap your mop in two? Lol. ;-) --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a source for the Ed Sullivan ratings from The New York Times. the other items are in the lead, so it's not like they are impossible to find. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)