Talk:The Beatles discography/Archive 1

Number of albums sold?
I don't see it anywhere! Where does it say how many albums they've sold? TheDavesr 02:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The White Album
I don't see it listed in the discography - I'm sure it was an official album when I bought it when it was released ?
 * The OFFICIAL title of this album is The Beatles. It's popularly known as The White Album because of the plain white sleeve.  If you type The White Album in Wikipedia, it redirects to The Beatles (album). Steelbeard1 10:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Restarting
Oh my gosh, who broke apart this entire page? I suppose I should help get started on restarting?

I've corrected the Heinz Edelmann link in the "Yellow Submarine" item, and removed the reference to Peter Max's alleged influence: People who worked on the film deny Max had anything to do with it. (see "Inside the Yellow Submarine" by Dr. Robert R. Hieronimus) Skyraider 22:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour was released in 1976 ? The Beatles split in 1970. MMT was released in 67. Jerome Potts 05:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour as an LP was formally released in the UK in 1976. It was released in the UK as a double EP, not an LP as it was when it was released in the USA. It became a popular import in the UK, continuing to sell as an import until it was released as an LP in the UK in 1976. steelbeard1

We have the Beatles Canadian albums listed. Shouldn't we include their Canadian singles? Ian911299

I noticed some of the US Singles peak chart positions do not agree with the Billboard Hot 100 charts (as compiled by Joel Whitburn in Top Pop 1955-2003). Shall I update accordingly, or what was the reference used in creating this list in the first place? Brian.D 02:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten/reformatted the Singles section, correcting erroneous chart information and generally making it easier to read. Also corrected the wikilinks to many of the singles' pages. -- Brian.D 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and, to coin a phrase, it's fab! :) --kingboyk 18:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel likewise. I indicated the two Beatle singles which made the American charts which were actually Canadian imports as indicated by the 72000 series catalogue numbers. Steelbeard1 21:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ...thanks for the kind words. :) (fab, even... that's like the ultimate Beatlesque compliment! heh) I thought about adding in the Canadian imports, but I guess my fingers weren't listening to my head while I was typing it up.  Thanks for adding them in.  :) -- Brian.D 01:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour
Why isn't Magical Mystery Tour included in the "big" list? The albums feels like it should be in there, considering that it contains an album's worth of original songs. Kangy 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the MMT LP was never formally released in the UK until 1976. Until then, it was only available in the UK as an import. MMT was first released in the UK as a double EP. Steelbeard1 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me second Kangy's question. I don't know enough to add it, but I'm almost sure it should be there.  Also, the text of the article says 14 albums, while the Brit list is 12 and the US list is 20. Rick Norwood 00:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Beatles have 25 major CD albums. Magical Mystery Tour is one of them. I feel it should be included in the big list. After all, Magical Mystery Tour did become part of the official Beatles catalogue, so it should be included. Ian911299


 * For historic accuracy involving the British Beatle LPs issued while The Beatles were together, the official pre-CD listing should stand. steelbeard1

There's a project getting underway around The Beatles, please consider joining up and helping shape direction. Info at top. + +Lar: t/c 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

song links
Gosh this page looks nice! But I'm wondering if the songs that have articles should be linked? + +Lar: t/c 01:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
Kingboyk wrote in "The Beatles discography" log:

> I prefer the central align.

Using alignment of page elements to lead the eye is a basic principle of graphic design.  You may not know this if you are not a graphic designer.

The central align makes readability considerably more difficult without visible table cell borders. There isn't a clear indication of where the description begins for the relevant album image. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the spacing between table cells is little more than the spacing between lines. All of the descriptions for the albums run together. The alignment of the album images to the top of the cell gives a visual clue to the reader of where the description begins. Without that alignment the user must expend effort to hunt for the beginning of the description.

Given this would you please reconsider the vertical alignment?

> I planned to keep the style="border: 1px solid lightgrey;" change, but > that doesn't work if the browser window is made small. It borders the > CELL, not the image.

I will make a replacement image then. I could not find a way to specify a border for an image in the mediawiki syntax.

For replies, please respond here or via email.

Mperry 22:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * All I can say "is what I like" and nope I'm not a graphics designer. I preferred it before. Let's see what other people have to say. Comments please!--kingboyk 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have diffs? are these two (below) representative of the basic difference in style? Assuming they are I have set this up to leave prefer siggies (remember "polls are evil" though) + +Lar: t/c 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll
Prefer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beatles_discography&oldid=43652410 (text aligned with the top of the cover image)
 * 1) I am guessing Mperry prefers it this way?
 * 2) I find centered text hard to follow. I'd prefer that in addition to top aligning, we actually added horizontal rules between each album if it wasn't too busy.. + +Lar: t/c 03:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Prefer. I would advise against adding horizontal rules. That just adds more graphic elements to the page and makes it busier than it is. A better solution would be to add some padding between the rows. Just a bit of whitepace will help to separate the rows and make things more readable. I tried to add an ID to the table and then style the TD of ID to have "padding-bottom: 1em" but the style was ignored by the wiki and displayed in the page instead. I'm not sure how to add style tags in the page in MediaWiki. --Mperry 22:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Prefer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beatles_discography&oldid=43661858 (text aligned with the center of the cover image)
 * 1) I am guessing Steve prefers it this way? -- Aye. --kingboyk 04:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No preference
 * 1) Comment: I have no strong opinion either way on this. Both look ok to me, and neither seems any harder to digest.. though I do appreciate the logic of our graphic designer. --Mal 10:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Capitol Albums, Volume 2
Capitol Records will release "The Capitol Albums, Vol 2" which features the American 1965 LPs with an April 11 release date. Info at http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/21/music.beatles.reut/index.html Steelbeard1 15:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Who wants to start the article? I tried using The Capitol Albums, Volume 1 as the template but couldn't create the article to my satisfaction. Steelbeard1 19:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I got the article started! Of course, as more info becomes available, feel free to add to it! Steelbeard1 04:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there a DYK in there somewhere? I'm not seeing any tidbits that are hook-y enough. Now's the time to nom it if there are some, as it will have more days of chances... PS nice work on your last DYK'ed article! + +Lar: t/c 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Right now, all I see is the chartbusting Beatle accomplishments in April 1964.  I mentioned that this box set will be released on the 42nd Anniversary of The Beatles holding a record 14 positions in the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart.  This was one week after The Beatles monopolised the Top 5 positions in the Billboard Hot 100 chart. —This unsigned comment was added by Steelbeard1 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 March 2006.
 * That was the tidbit I needed, nominated! (see March 21 entries)... BTW you should not feel shy about nomination yourself if you're so inclined. Great article, thanks! + +Lar: t/c 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Past Masters 2-LP set
Because the Past Masters compilation was issued as a 2-LP set comparied to the two individual volumes on CD, does the Past Masters 2-LP set deserve its own article? I did submit the cover photo. But as you can see, I could not eliminate the glare on the glossy cover. Steelbeard1 16:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Image:Pastmastersvol1and2albumcover.jpg
 * In my opinion, no, because it was just a 2LP version of the same CDs wasn't it? A little different from Rarities, the two releases of which were very different. --kingboyk 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then how about indicating what tracks are on each side of the LPs in the existing articles? Steelbeard1 17:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really neccessary (it can be done in the discography) but hey if you think it can be done without harming the existing articles go right ahead. You don't have to ask :-) (although it's very nice and courteous that you do!) --kingboyk 17:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I indicated the side selections for the LP version of Past Masters, Volume One and Past Masters, Volume Two. Steelbeard1 15:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

External Sites
Do you think this Beatles Lyrics site could be included in the main page of external links. It has a wealth of information on every song? Just a suggestion.

Souvenir of Their Visit to America
I created the article to fill a gap. How is it? Steelbeard1 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting article. If there are sources, it could stand a little analysis-ish stuff. Why was it released? Why did it not do well? Who are Vee-Jay (one sentence since they have an article already.). Why these songs? Who took the cover photo? Again, if there are sources for any of this... if not, never mind. Secondly, this probably could/should be discussed at the project page somewhere since it's about another article, not this article. That said, good work! Needs a few more tidbits to be DYK nominatable. + +Lar: t/c 04:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is also mentioned in the main article's talk section. I Added FYI worthy trivia about why many of The Beatles' early records were released on Vee-Jay Records. Of course, you can add to it. Steelbeard1 12:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article made DYK for April 3! The DYK was that while the EP was the first one released in the USA, it did not chart! Steelbeard1 08:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Don't forget to add such things to the project log :) Good news indeed! --kingboyk 12:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Tony Sheridan recordings
The latest repackaging of the Tony Sheridan recordings have been introduced in this discography. Except for the UK release of "My Bonnie", there has been no mention of the Tony Sheridan tracks in this article. There have been numerous repackagings of the tracks, mostly from Polydor Records. Do they belong in this article? Steelbeard1 10:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not in their myriad reissues, no, I would say (it seems to be an annual event rereleasing those doesn't it?!). The very first release? Sure. --kingboyk 11:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The original LP release was My Bonnie by Tony Sheridan and The Beat Brothers. Steelbeard1 15:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted the mention of the above reissue in this article. The only releases which should be included are the original German "My Bonnie" LP, the circa 1963 British Polydor release, the 1964 vintage American MGM Records and Atco Records releases and the circa 1970 Polydor USA release of "In The Beginning (circa 1960)".  Polydor was not active in the USA until 1969, hence the later release of the Sheridan material in the USA on Polydor. Steelbeard1 16:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We should do further research on the first release of the Sheridan material. I found out that the first UK release was in 1967 as "The Beatles First" on Polydor 236-201, released August 4, 1967.  Info at  Steelbeard1 19:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I just contributed the first consolidated American LP issue of the Sheridan material In The Beginning (Circa 1960) Steelbeard1 04:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I completed the two remaining American releases of the Sheridan tracks with the MGM LP The Beatles with Tony Sheridan & Guests and the Atco LP Ain't She Sweet. Steelbeard1 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

More detailed American LP discography
I noticed that Analogdemon has started work on a more detailed American original Beatle LP discography which I commend. I would suggest following the UK LP detailed discography format and giving the track selection for each side. For American Beatle LPs which exactly match the British LPs, mention 'as British album' without giving the redundant track listing. I'm sure it will satisfy those who want a full listing of the Magical Mystery Tour LP which was released in the USA first a decade before its official release in the UK. Steelbeard1 16:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm working on that now. --Analogdemon (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice job, Analogdemon! Anyone want to give the original UK albums the same detailed treatment? Steelbeard1 02:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh yes, very nice job indeed! --kingboyk 12:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do the UK albums tonight. --Analogdemon (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done --Analogdemon (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks great, Analogdemon. Steelbeard1 15:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actual release date for Introducing...The Beatles
According to "The Beatles on Vee-Jay Records" (a source for the album's article), and also Beatles-Discography.com, while copies of the album may have been pressed as early as July 22, 1963, the album never hit store shelves before January 6, 1964. I have changed the release date to reflect that, as it doesn't matter when the records were pressed if people couldn't buy them. --Analogdemon (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jude album
Shouldn't the US Hey Jude album be categorised under compilation albums? warpozio 08:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Compilation albums consist of material previously released on LPs. Except for "Can't Buy Me Love" and "I Should Have Known Better" which were issued on the UA soundtrack LP for A Hard Day's Night, all of the tracks in this album made their LP debut.  Also, Apple (make that Allen Klein) was behind this release.  It was also treated at the time as a new album because of the mostly new on LP material.  I say keep it in the main USA LP discography. Steelbeard1 10:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with a definition that compilation albums consist of material previously released on LPs. If that is the case, then the two Past Masters albums should be put in the main list as well...
 * IMHO Capitol followed the Parlophone album release from 1967 (Sgt. Pepper, White album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Hey Jude). So, just like "A Collection of Beatles Goldies", it could be put in the compilations list.warpozio 20:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll chip in since you two aren't agreeing: I think by the fact alone that it included some very old material it's a compilation. Provided the compilations are going to get the same prettification treatment it also doesn't matter too much which section it goes in, and of course a note can be added explaining the release and the difficulties in classifying it. Hey Jude was also imported to the UK, of course, where it most definitely was a compilation. --kingboyk 20:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... then, by this same reasoning, why not call the US release, Beatles '65 a compilation album as well?
 * I've always personally considered the "post-Beatles" albums 1962-1966, 1967-1970, Rarities, etc. as compilation albums, and any released during their tenure as a band as regular releases... -- Brian.D 23:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles Collection and The Beatles Box Set
An anonymous poster made mention of The Beatles Box Set in The Beatles Collection article without mentioning the separately listed article. I made mention of it in the latter and mentioned availability in digitally remastered vinyl and cassettes in the former. What wasn't mentioned is the digitally remastered set has the first four albums are in mono whilst the first four albums in The Beatles Collection are in stereo. Should this be mentioned in the articles? Steelbeard1 11:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think it's useful info, add it. If you don't, don't! :) --kingboyk 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge The Early Tapes of The Beatles into The Beatles' First
I formally proposed merging The Early Tapes of The Beatles which is the umpteenth repackaging of the Tony Sheridan Hamburg sessions of 1961 into the original and definitive repackaging of the tracks called The Beatles' First. You can go to the articles' talk pages to continue the discussion. Steelbeard1 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Swan Records article
I want to avert a revert war because someone insists on inserting a graphic of a 78 rpm label of an earlier Swan Records without including any info on that Swan Records. Of course, a later Swan Records in existence from 1957 to 1967 had as its biggest hit "She Loves You" by The Beatles which the company was given the rights to before Capitol Records in the USA finally said yes to The Beatles. Can you check out the article and decide for yourself? Steelbeard1 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Matter taken up at Talk:Swan Records, which I've watchlisted. I've also added a WPBeatles as it seems to be within our scope (small label most widely known for releasing a Beatles single). --kingboyk 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Compilations
Many Beatles compilations not listed here can be found at the following website.

http://music.yahoo.com/ar-262009-discography--The-Beatles

I have some Capitol Records releases LP's that list an album called "Long Tall Sally". I am sure I have seen copies of this in some second hand stores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.200.241 (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good article
I passed this article as I think it's met all the criteria to warrant good article status. I can't think of any other suggestions to make this article any better. NIce work guys. HK51 12:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles discography
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 06:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
 * Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.
 * See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
 * The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 01:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

UK Singles reissues
How come this discography only includes US reissued singles, but not UK ones. In the 1980s The Beatles had many of their singles re-enter the UK top 100 (not just "Love me do"). Surley these are just as noteable? 64.12.116.201 20:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Delisting
Unfortunately, the article is still missing in-line citations (of particular need in the section Historical background) and such doesn't met the Good Article Criteria at this time. The article is being delisted from the current GA list until the reference concerns are address. I encourage the editors of the article to continue working on the article to bring it up to GA standards and resubmit it for GA consideration on the nomination page. Agne 02:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles (EP)
Someone listed this on the request page for albums and such; can someone verify that this exists or not and then delete it from the request page if it doesn't or if you create the article? Thaaaaaanks, --Notmyhandle 06:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does exist. gives the details. Zakko 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour
Why is it not listed as being released in the UK? It was wasn't it? Errr....--andreasegde 08:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you look in the British EP section? It's in there.   Also, the LP wasn't officially released in the UK until 1976 so it's listed in the Compilations and other releases in the UK section of LPs.  Before 1976, the MMT LP was only available in the UK as an American (later German) import.  Steelbeard1 11:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grief, I'm gob-smacked. Only released in the UK in 1976? I am speechless... --andreasegde 22:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian discography
Thanks for the Canadian discography, but there is no source for the Canadian chart rankings. Also, were the early 1963 Canadian singles immediate hits or did they become hits a year later? I'm assuming the latter because most of the British Please Please Me album tracks were not issued in Canada until 1964. Steelbeard1 12:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the CHUM Chart link. It's a useful tool as the CHUM Charts searchable link at  allowed me to add additional info which indicated that the earliest Canadian Beatle singles in early 1963 did not chart until a year later. Steelbeard1 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

4== Bonus tracks on Russian release? ==

Does anyone else have these? There were some bonus tracks on the release of the Russian version of The White Album.

Picture --



- ErikB 16:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind. I made the picture a little smaller. Interested parties can click it to see full-size version. John Cardinal 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Remastered CDs Release Date
When are the new Remastered Beatles Albums goin to be released exactly. And could I be shown where it was this matter was reported on. I found a USA today article, that is apparently from march of 2006, and yet the wikipage reports that there was such a report in early 2007. I'm not picking at anything, I just would like to read the article, as I wish to buy those remastered CD's and want to know an approximate release date.

Thanks. G.AC 17:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's going to be a while, from what I have found from articles.

Suggestions to improve the article
First of all - hats off to all the people who have worked so hard to assemble information for this article. it is apparent that a lot of effort has gone into it.

I would like to make some constructive suggestions of how I think the article could be improved. In some cases to make it more logical to read. And in other cases to reflect some factual issues.

I would not presume to make any of the changes I suggest without discussion and input from others who obviously care about this article a lot.

1) It has rightly been noted that the discography is not easy to comprehend - because of the fact that there were different releases in various countries. So it is incumbent upon us to make it as clear as can be.

2) In addition to the difference of releases in UK, US and Canada - there were actually many different releases in other countries. That would probably be too confusing to address in this article.  However - down the road - some adventurous souls may wish to create a separate article to at least note the major different releases.

Anyway - that is not the main thing I want to address.

3) It certainly makes sense that there are different sections for UK, US and Canada. However - one key suggestion. The Beatles releases were always viewed (in their time) as a body of work.  Singles, EPs and albums.  So I think it more useful to list the Singles and EP releases for each country - in their respective national sections.

Noting that in the 1960s in the UK - singles were releases unto themselves. And very important. They were NOT (as they were in the US - and as they became in the UK from the 1970s onwards - tracks taken from albums for release AS singles to promote an album. They were works in and of themselves.  And very important to the Beatles.

Given their importance to the Beatles - perhaps the discography should lead off with their singles - in chron. sequence of course,

Followed by their albums.

The EPs (with two exceptions) were compiled from already-issued albums and singles tracks - and should follow after the albums.

4) This pattern could repeat for the US and Canadian releases.

5) The article makes a useful distinction between studio albums and later "compilation" albums. The point is well-taken.  I think there is room for a further few refinements.  Ones that would accurately reflect some distinctions that the Beatles themselves make.

I think there should be a distinction made between the official releases created and/or sanctioned by the Beatles and Apple. Which means everything from 1962 to 1970. And then from 1987 onwards.

Between 1970 and 1987 there were numerous releases initiated by EMI (in the UK) and Capitol (in the US) that did NOT have the sanction of - nor input from - the Beatles. These releases were primarily compilations - but also include "Hollywood Bowl". They also include singles that the Beatles themselves did not regard as official singles releases. It was only the settlement of the legal battles between Apple/Beatles in 1986 that led to the change and the policy that no releases could come out without official sanction of the Beatles/Apple.

Starting with the two "Past Masters" compilations - and then all the releases from "Live At BBC" onwards - these are Beatles releases in the true meaning of the words. Ordained, sequenced, sanctioned by the Beatles. Even "Collection of Oldies" in 1966 had approval of Brian Epstein and the Beatles - and the inclusion of a track unreleased in the UK.

But every release from after the "Let It Be" album and the "Let It Be" single (in 1970) to the "Past Masters" volumes and the "Live At BBC" album were PURELY record company initiated. George Martin was consulted on some releases (eg the "Hollywood Bowl" album which he actually produced). But George Martin was not acting on behalf of the Beatles. The Beatles in those years did not have legal clout or leverage over EMI. And the releases that came out 1970-1986 should be seen as record company compilations, reissues and releases. The Beatles official discography re-starts in either 1987 with the two Past Masters CDs - or with the "Live At BBC" album. And everything since then is an official release.

One can certainly see the distinction between the various compilations issued in the 1970s and the "Anthology" series in the 1990s. And that should be reflected in this article. A difference in effect between the creative works of the artist -which represents a canon of an artist's work. And in the 1970-1986 era - the (quite legal) exploitation of some of those works by the artist's record company. Certainly lawful. But they were purely commercial undertakings as distinct from a part of the artist's canon of work.

Perhaps the best way to do this would be re-characterize the lists. There would be official Beatles releases - all the records from 1962 to 1970. Then again from 1987 (or 1994) onwards.

With a separate section. "Record Company Compilations & Releases"

This would cover all those releases - including "Hollywood Bowl" and the various singles reissues etc that had NOT been sactioned by the Beatles.

6) Another abberation that should be addressed...  The multiple releases of the Hamburg material - the vast majority (if not all) was originally released as The Beat Brothers (or not credited at all except to Tony Sheridan) and was only subsequently released as The Beatles.

Perhaps there should be a section titled "The Hamburg Recordings" - with a brief preamble about the recordings. And then a list of the multiple incarnations of the recordings. In any event - I don't think they belong in the same list as the official Beatles recordings.

7) Given the importance that the Beatles - and music critics - attributed to the band's evolution over the years - particularly from 1965 onwards - perhaps there should also be a succinct release chronology 1962-1970 - ie the years that the Beatles were active.  Year by year - listing all the singles, albums (and the two EPs containing ORIGINAL material) in exact sequence with release date.

I look forward to a spirited debate on this. I hope my suggestions are taken in the spirit they are offered - and no one takes offense. Thanks Davidpatrick 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can add and should point out is that The Beatles (through Apple) authorised the 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 compilations in 1973. The Beatles' contracts with EMI expired in the mid-1970s and beginning with the Rock 'n' Roll Music compilation in 1976, The Beatles' new compilations were done by EMI without the authorisation of The Beatles or Apple Corps.  As mentioned previously, the CD reissues and Past Masters compilations led to legal settlements between EMI and Apple in which The Beatles, through Apple, authorised new compilations. Steelbeard1 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there an official source for that? I don't doubt you - but I'm curious as to the source that says they did authorise those two releases. The individual Beatles were still feuding among themselves and with Allan Klein at this point. Did the Beatles/Apple "authorise" or perhaps just acquiesce in those releases?  Actually I'm not sure that their original contract gave them power of sanction in those days.  It precluded then (as it still does) any budget-price releases.  But I'm not sure if it gave them power to sanction a compilation.  Certainly Apple did not prevent these two compilations being released on CD in the 90s  - so they are certainly not regarded with the same disdain as the other compilations. But certainly 1976-1987 is a period where they had no sanction on releases.  And those releases are a different kettle of fish.  Davidpatrick 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

UK Release of MMT
Wasn't Magical Mystery Tour released in the UK? I don't see an entry for that UK release, only for the U.S. release.

Great article. ;)


 * Thank you. As to your enquiry, first, look in  as MMT was first issued in the UK as a double EP.  In the USA, it was released as an LP instead with the 1967 single releases added on.  For the UK LP release, look in  as it wasn't released in LP form in the UK until 1976!  It wasn't until the albums were reissued on CDs with the American MMT included that it was made an official Beatle album release. Steelbeard1 02:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Source for certification in the UK section?
The UK albums all have designations for "Gold" and "Platinum" (or whatever the case may be), but the BPI only started giving out awards in 1973, and doesn't award any albums released before that date retroactive certification. You can look this up in the BPI's database; see, click on "statistics" in the left bar, then "certified awards". Search for "beatles", and you only get post-breakup results. Also, the BPI does not award a "Diamond" certification; see [this page http://www.bpi.co.uk/platinum/platintro.html] on certified awards. (Also behold the following: "BPI certified awards were originally introduced in April 1973 to measure the performance of individual records based on sales to the trade each week.")

My guess is that someone took the album sales from somewhere else and mistakenly applied the "gold" and "platinum" designations solely based on the sales. The "diamond" designation is an American invention that (I believe) designates the sale of ten million albums, but that designation does not exist in the UK and should not be included as part of the UK discography.

In short, source or correct, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.113.94 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Problem with album covers
User talk:ESkog has removed the album covers from this article because "they are non-free images without critical commentary attached to them. How should we handle this issue? Steelbeard1 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hiya Steelbeard1, hope your'e well! Now if I'm not mistaken haven't we been here before when someone else removed them? I think Kingboyk made the point that a guideline was being implimented as though it were policy. Cheers, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked Kingboyk to post his observations here. Steelbeard1 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This excerpt from our policy page on the subject says it simplest:
 * Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article.
 * This is the standard by which Non-free content draws its guidelines. Additionally, the fact that a guideline is not policy does not mean it should not be followed. The only difference between the two is that policies are never meant to be broken, and guidelines are only meant to be broken when you have a really good reason for doing so. Both are central to the way Wikipedia operates. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Compare this issue to the recent list of... episodes controversy, which resulted in many fair use images being removed. Our fair use policy is policy, and one of our most important. We aren't Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia for nothing. J Milburn 19:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But... the primary goal of Wikipedia is to educate, and the covers serve an educational purpose and improve the article by their presence. One purpose of this page is to help people find particular albums when they don't know (or can't remember) the title. For example, a reader who is not familiar with the Beatles but who remembers an album cover as "the one with them crossing the street" or "the one with them in costumes" might look at the discography page to find the album with the given cover. Otherwise, they have to hunt through multiple articles. Given the complicated discography of the Beatles (with different releases in different countries), they might have trouble and even in the best of cases it's tedious. Sure, Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road will be found quickly, but that may not be true of other albums.


 * Given the above, I think we should be looking for ways to restore the covers to the article while staying within the fair-use guidelines. &mdash; John Cardinal 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've submitted this question to "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)", here. — Mudwater 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What_Wikipedia_is_not - legitimate use of fair-use images. Jooler 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus about the rationality of the fair use claims. It seems like people like to quote this and WP:IAR only when it suits them, but ignoring proper rules of fair use could put the whole project at harm. While I agree that the pictures should probably be there, you need to find a better way of rationalizing it than what is above.--Shadowdrak 02:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The artwork displayed on the cover of an album is the principal marketing vehicle of the product contained within. While the record companies continue to sell the albums shown on this page they are only to happy for the images to be used in this context. This dispute is a non-issue. Jooler 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more - well said - (written) Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Album covers: raised as a test case at WP:Fair use
I've used this page (which is seriously impressive -- props to everybody, btw) as a test case for the question of whether album covers in discographies can qualify within WP's fair use policies.

The issue will be thrashed out at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.

The establishment there have got more and more uncompromising and sweeping over the years, so if you want to keep the images on this page, you will need to make sure the voices of the sane majority of ordinary Wikipedia contributors don't go unheard. Jheald 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for calling me insane. I appreciate it. --Durin 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a consensus issue, it's Foundation and local policy. You can't go around using non free images for decorative purposes. This discography discusses, in passing the work of The Beatles, there's no reference to the images at all. There is no way you can justify the use of any non free image in this article. Nick 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you can use images for decorative purposes. You certainly can't use fair use images for decorative purposes, though. Fair use galleries are not allowed. Moreschi Talk 18:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, Moreschi. The issue is about discography articles and album covers are an important component as they are used to promote the album and are often used to describe the album when an interested reader may not recognise the album by its title, but can by the design of the album cover. Steelbeard1 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I sincerely wish I was missing the point, but unfortunately I'm not. From WP:FAIR: "Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary).", and ""As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.",", and ""Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." That's what the rules are. Moreschi Talk 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In the words of Captain Barbossa - "the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" - and therefore not nearly as binding as you make out (it even says it's a guideline at the top of the page). - In this case it makes no logical sense and serves no purpose to Wikipedia to regard this general guideline as a non-violable rule. The guideline notice says - "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Jooler 22:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-free content criteria is policy, not a guideline. From there, items 3(a) and 8 prohibit the use of images in galleries/lists. --Durin 05:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You refer to -
 * 3.a - "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice" - clearly in a discography one will not suffice.
 * 8 - "It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." - Clearly in this context the first sentence is of more significance than the second. It is not a mere gallery of album covers. It is a discography of albums and an intrisic part of the album is the cover. The cover art together with the name are both equally important in the identification of a particular album.
 * Nuff said. Jooler 08:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, a list of albums is not a place where we can use fair use. Fair use of cover art is not permissible unless the image is being used for both identification and critical commentary. Here, no critical commentary is provided, so using a fair use image is completely inappropriate, per Non-free content, and the same thing is said on Non-free album cover, except with worse phrasing. If the use of fair use is to be valid, critical commentary must be provided. Moreschi Talk 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet again - what you quote is a guideline not a rule. To quote the guide to the guideline - "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Jooler 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jooler, those are not bad arguments. However, are you/others involved with this article willing to add fair use rationales for each of those images, justifying their use on this page? (That's not a trick question, by the way.) Riana ⁂  11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The straight answer is - No. I'm not willing to waste my time on bureaucracy at Wikipedia. That is why I haven't used my administrator account here for the last 3 years. Jooler 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy is what it is. It's not bureaucracy to comply with it. I think this particular article could easily have all the album covers be validly used under fair use, by having actual discussion of the covers, their significances, distinctions by geography and so on (all properly sourced of course, not as original research) included if so desired. If no one wants to take the time to do that, hey, we're all volunteers, that's OK, no one should have to if they don't want to, but policy is what it is. ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to dispute Durin et al's interpretation of the policy, the place to do it is in this section at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. I made what I thought was a solid case there as to why a discography, which may have a complimentary effect on sales of the original works, should be treated differently to a gallery of ordinary photographs, which is likely to have a substitutive effect on sales of the original photos; and why the images significantly add to the article, and fall within what policy allows; and why the use being made here was genuinely the minimal use possible to achieve the intended objective. If you want to dispute Durin et al's interpretation, that is where you should challenge it and try to develop consensus - at head office, as it were - rather than here. Jheald 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While there is a dispute in progress the page should be restored to the previous stable state (i.e with the images). When I tried to do this I was blocked! Jooler 11:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, not always. Sometimes policy overrides the notion of restoring to previous stable state. I'm not sure I would have blocked over it, though... did you do it more than once? ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I restored the images on 4 occasions over five days while at the same time advancing arguments on this page as to why the inclusion of the images falls within the current fair-use policy. The threat to block by Durin and the application to block by Steel were both abuse of priviledge in my opinion. Jooler 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * . – Steel 14:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Yes I am aware one of those was on the 2nd, before anyone points that out.
 * Actually that's one on the 2nd, one on the 5th and two on the 6th. And I don't see why it shouldn't be one more on the 7th or the 8th. This page has had images accompanying it for a very long time. Those who remove the images for whatever reason do not enhance this page. While the situation remmains unclear in this matter I see no reason why this page should be disrupted in this way. The previous status quo should be restored. Jooler 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jooler, the use of fair use images in galleries and lists is prohibited by policy. Please see Non-free content criteria item #8. This was upheld in a recent debate surrounding the use of screenshots in episode lists. This debate was reported on at Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use. I'll be frank and clear; this is policy. The policy is further buttressed by Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which in item #3 insists that fair use image use must be minimal. Four times now you have reverted removal of these images . Breaking our policies is a blockable offense. You've been informed of the policies. You've been reverted on two separate occasions by two different admins. Insisting on having your way by reverting in this case, when you've been shown the policy and been reverted by administrators, is very likely to wind up with you getting blocked. I caution you not to continue this. I can assure you that having such fair use in lists/galleries is not an option and will not be allowed. Whether you want to call this an abuse of privilege is of little concern to me. I am telling you what the policies are and what current practice is. These are not guidelines, as you insisted they were in one of your reverts. This is policy. --Durin 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Durin, can I put to you that the depth of information on this page makes it much more than just a list or a gallery. Though IMO, if images are to be used it would be good to include a line about the cover for each one, identifying the artist or the photographer, and e.g. the place the photograph was taken. There are a lot of pages which are no more than galleries or bare lists, but IMO this page is not one of them. Jheald 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and the policy you refer to clearly states (for the third time of repetition) "It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" - you seem to conveniently ignore this part of the policy. Thus the images contained on this page (just like The Beatles Collection and a dozen other pages) are allowed under policy and your assertion that I have have broken a policy is either simply incorrect or at the very least not as black and white as you make out. In my opinion your narrow interpretation is not the correct. Now instead of waving the big stick why don't you address the issue itself. The guideline I refered to was Non-free content and according to the guide to guidelines, 'guidelines can be challenged under the grounds of common sense, and I do. The policy you refer to is quoted above and was not breached because the images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - the album cover is vital for identification. The "decorative" nature of screenshots is not relevant here. The album cover is the principal marketing vehicle for an album and (together with the name) one of the two principal means of identifying the album (see Help! (album) and Help%21_%28album%29 for example) If the pages here had several images of the band not from an album cover that would be merely decorative, but album covers in this context are not. The cover is an intrinsic part of any album and needs to be shown. Jooler 07:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with this:
 * The cover image of an album is just as vital to the album as its name. A discography without the images is as good as worthless.
 * The images appear on the individual album pages, and none of these pages contain a "critical commentary" of the album to begin with - remember, the Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not about opinions or critical comments.
 * So either this policy (or guideline or whatever) should be modified in order to prevent discussions like this, or every album image should be removed from the Wikipedia.
 * If this is indeed a testcase, then please restore the album images and accomodate the wording of the relevant policies to what is nothing more than common sense. DVdm 09:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I've quoted from the relevant policy above: "Fair use of cover art is not permissible unless the image is being used for both identification and critical commentary." No critical commentary here, so a fair use gallery is not permissible. Even if the album cover is key to identification, there's no critical commentary being provided, so the point is moot. Moreschi Talk 09:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to repeat myself but FOR THE 3RD TIME! Morsechi - the passage you are quoting is from Non-free content. THAT IS NOT A POLICY PAGE. It is a guideline. And as is stated on that very page - [a guideline] is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. . Jooler 17:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, you've been shown the policy on this. See Non-free content criteria item #8 which is policy. Please stop calling this a guideline and therefore attempt to override it. You've been told repeatedly that it is not just a guideline, but policy. --Durin 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And yet again you seem to conveniently ignore the very first sentence of that particular article of the policy. "It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" . This has already been pointed out to you by myself several times and you have yet to acknowledge it. Thus the inclusion of images to aid the understnading is justified and fully compliant with policy. Jooler 20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If so, then you should act and strive to have the images removed from all the individual album pages. By definition they cannot have critical commentaries - they should have facts only. The point is that the policy should be reviewed. DVdm 09:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Articles on albums can detail what critical commentary has been done on that particular album/work of art in question. The policy is a consequence of Foundation-level decree and our mission to be a free (libre) encyclopedia. That will not change. Moreschi Talk 09:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that is what *I* call a moot argument. To "detail what critical commentary has been done" is very different from giving critical commentary. DVdm 09:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Exercise for the test case
As an example, the following line appears on the album page A Hard Day's Night (album) that also includes the album image.
 * "In 2000, Q placed A Hard Day's Night at number 5 in its list of the 100 Greatest British Albums Ever."

Suppose this line would be put on the overview page The Beatles discography under the heading of the particular album, and suppose that a similar, essential and concise instance of "critical commentary" would appear for every listed album. Would that be sufficient to conform to the policy and allow the inclusion of the album images? If not, what is the problem, and can someone provide a workable definition of "critical commentary" over which consensus can be reached? DVdm 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Now the catalogue box sets are affected
Now the individual album covers have been removed from The Beatles Collection and The Beatles Box Set. Fortunately, the latter box set shows on its 'cover' its contents. I'm thinking of taking a picture of my copy of The Beatles Collection with its contents for inclusion in that article. How is that idea? Steelbeard1 13:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just undo the semi-automatic edits, but add a single line of critical commentary to each item. Unless they reword the policy, that should do it. DVdm 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What constitutes 'critical commentary' is in dispute. Steelbeard1 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In current discussion at WT:FAIR too, not just here. (Though note that discographies aren't popular there -- this one IMO is a special case, because it already has a lot more substance to it than most which are little more than a bald list).  What constitutes sufficient "critical commentary"?  Not yet wholly agreed, even in terms of a cover illustrating its own album... -- Jheald 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you pass the word to User talk:Durin who made the deletions in the first place? Steelbeard1 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Durin replied to me about mentioning something about the album cover could count as 'critical commentary'. Steelbeard1 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Compare what they did on the page Jazz Fusion. Let's go for it. DVdm 15:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry for having mentioned this. Sometimes it's better to just shut the f*ck up, I guess :-( DVdm 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Afraid so. It wasn't on his hitlist. -- Jheald 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, rather than try to find creative ways to get around our policies, you should be focusing on our Mission, which is to provide a free content encyclopedia. Stop trying to game the system, please. Fair use images are not free, and every instance of the usage of one further decreases our overall value with respect to our mission. Please. --Durin 15:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Durin, with respect, that is complete bollocks. A brighter, better illustrated article is more likely to attract the readers and editors who actually improve and create free content, and make for a better reusable resource.  "Every instance of the usage of one further decreases our overall value with respect to our mission" ???  Actually the opposite is true.  Appropriate use of legitimte fair-use material makes WP more inviting, more successful, which in turn tends to produce more editors and more free content (and more profile). Jheald 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You've made this argument before. Essentially this boils down to decorative use. I.e., it makes it pretty so therefore it is fair use. This is not supported either in policy or fair use law. I'm sorry. --Durin 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that if something is attractive that makes it fair use. I'm saying if something is legal -- note the word legitimate emphasised above, using it appropriately can be of positive value to Wikipedia.  Jheald 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to note that the supposedly acceptable use in Jazz fusion being a way around this policy is not such. The use there is not acceptable. I've removed the images. Steelbeard1, perhaps I wasn't clear. Simply discussing the album isn't what is needed. The album cover needs to be discussed in some form of commentary. Please see and the example of holographic imagery on the album cover example. --Durin 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The album cover needs to be discussed in some form of commentary. This is strongly disputed, and the seat of intense discussion, currently, at WT:FAIR.  It is fair to say your view is in the minority.  Fair-use wise, an album cover is not the same as the use of a historic photo.  Unlike the historic photo, inclusion of an album cover in an article giving critical commentary on the album as a whole is likely to be complementary use rather than a  substitutive use, with respect to the main normal exploitation of the image.  The standards are different; as WP policy reflects.  Jheald 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether my view is in the minority or not is of no particular relevance. The issue here is fair use law, and the superset Wikipedia policy. I refer again to Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, and quote again "There must be real, substantial condensation of the materials, and intellectual labor and judgment bestowed thereon; and not merely the facile use of the scissors" Simply re-displaying a copyrighted work does not constitute fair use. The issue is transformative use. You should read this blog entry on the matter from the Patry Copyright Blog. In particular, it notes a judge indicating "A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test; in Justice Story's words, it would merely "supersede the objects" of the original." Simply redisplaying an album cover is just repackaging. If you do not discuss the cover, you're just displaying it.
 * To be clear; if this were a matter of say our 3RR policy, consensus would have a lot of bearing on the matter. This is because it has no connection to the outside world, no basis in law that governs how Wikipedia should be have. This issue is far, far more difficult precisely because it DOES have to work with existing law. Consensus can not trump law. "Your honor, we violated copyright law because consensus at Wikipedia, one of our highest held values, said we could" This is not an affirmative defense. We must answer the law.
 * Fair use law is deliberately vague. There is no bright line that clearly says "This is fair use". Wikipedia's focus is on free content, not on trying to figure out how we can get as much copyrighted works into the project as possible. We must stay well clear of any murky area where we may or may not be in compliance with law. That is why our policy is written the way it is. --Durin 16:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's focus is on free content, not on trying to figure out how we can get as much copyrighted works into the project as possible. That I do not dispute. We must stay well clear of any murky area. That I do not dispute either.  What I do dispute is your understanding of what constitutes a murky area.  Though I'm no doubt wasting my words on you.  But you should test what you think you know with a real copyright lawyer, like User:wikidemo.
 * Firstly, let's put your selective quotes into context. Folsom v. Marsh (from 1841!) related to a publisher selling an abridged version of a volume of letters published by another publisher.  That was the context in which the only effort the publisher had put in was "the facile use of scissors".  The second quote is from a case where one church republished another church's prayerbook, with only the title page changed.  These are non-transformative uses, because the objective of the republishers' entire work was exactly the same as the objective of the original publishers.
 * On the other hand, to quote the first paragraph of the blog you cited, one can distinguish that from a productive use, "According to Dr. Seltzer, a productive use was one in which one author, using reasonable portions of the work of a prior author, creates a new work. That new work adds to the fount of public knowledge. This theory was embraced wholeheartedly by the Ninth Circuit in Sony, and while criticized as constituting an absolute rule, it was not entirely discarded by the Supreme Court in that case".
 * The current vogue term is a transformative use, as per eg Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. Continuing from the blog: Judge Pierre Leval ... proposed the term "transformative use, "The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test; in Justice Story's words, it would merely "supersede the objects" of the original. If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original -- if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings -- this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society".
 * So what is our purpose here? We are writing an educational article on the Beatles.  That is a transformative use.  It is not the use for which the material was created.  We are including the image (at least in an article on a particular album), because as Jimmay Wales makes clear, it is the image intimately associated with that album.  It is appropriate to include it in an encyclopaedic article.  The secondary use adds value to the original by placing it in the context of a survey of the material with which it is intimately associated.  Or in the case of this page a detailed encyclopaedic survey of the band's whole musical output and visual style.
 * But that is only the first of the "four factors". The second and the third would appear to be neutral, as they were in Perfect 10 vs Google and Kelly vs Arriba Soft  However, what is particularly characteristic for box art and cover art, is the fourth factor: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work; because like a review, an encyclopedic article highlighting the work is likely to increase public awareness of it, and so its commercial value.  And that's really why Template:Bookcover - which you can be sure, being so prominent, will have been legalled into the ground - can so confidently assert that "it is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers *to illustrate an article discussing the book in question* qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law; and Template:Non-free album cover can be even more permissive.
 * Wikipedia must stay well clear of any murky area. But the use of a small thumbnail of an album cover in an article with extensive material on that album is not murky.  Jheald 19:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The simple fact that were having such a long and heavy debate on this topic I think clearly highlights that it is murky. I'll still insist we hold to our mission; provide a free content encyclopedia. No argument can be made that fair use images are free. You're arguing for more liberal use. I'm arguing for less liberal use. There's no common ground here. --Durin 20:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply highlights you don't know what you're talking about. And that you seem to have a total awareness block as to how much the good use of legal fair use images can support and encourage the development of free content.  Strange to see a complaint that somebody else is too liberal from someone who harps on about freedom so much.  Jheald 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm a blithering idiot. I think we're done discussing this matter. Have a nice day. --Durin 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hoping to give a valid use of fair use to help clarify things; take a look at Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg. This image is used on Abbey Road (street). The use is legitimate in this case; the cover is being discussed in the article and its impact on the history and cultural significance of the road. That is fair use. Now, take a look at this version of the 1970 article, which contained the album cover for Let It Be. This use was not legitimate; the article simply noted that the album was released in that year, and that it was the final album. There's nothing about the album cover itself; just the album. This is not fair use, and simply serves a decorative purpose that can just as well be performed in words on the article. You do not need the album cover to indicate that this album was their final release. Hopefully this help clarifies matters a bit more. --Durin 15:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is all very clear. In less than 48 hours, the entire Wikipedia has been transformed into the dullest place one can possibly imagine to find information on music. Well done. DVdm 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is dull. Whether it is dull or not is not a consideration as to whether something is fair use or not. Decorative use does not count as fair use. --Durin 16:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that trying to follow the law is dull. If people want pretty pictures they can try out vh1.com. Beatles covers are not exactly inaccessible. Riana ⁂  16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to the elimination of the cover photos, the album listings in the two catalogue box set articles have been converted to tables. My original question has not yet been answered: is it a good idea to take a photo of my copy of The Beatles Collection box set showing the contents? As mentioned above, the 'cover' of The Beatles Box Set already shows its contents. Steelbeard1 19:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll end up having a fight over that photo. He will beat you with experience, so take Dilbert's advice on this. DVdm 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I be Dogbert? Pretty please? --Durin 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll on the use of fair-use images on this page and the interpretation of policy
''This poll is NOT about changing policy. But about the interpretation of existing policy. In this respect this poll does NOT challenge the normal policy making procedures. The purpose of this poll is primarily to discover how opinions on the matter are dvided.''

I contend that the previous use of fair-use images as previously existed on this page falls within the boundaries of existing policy. Specifically in Non-free content criteria it states
 * 3.a - ..."Multiple items are not used if one will suffice"...
 * I contend that a single image in a discography does not suffice and thus the use of multiple images falls within policy.
 * 8 - ..."It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot"...
 * It is a discography of albums and an intrisic part of the album is the cover. The cover art together with the name are both equally important in the identification of a particular album and the cover art constitutes as signficant a part of the album as the songs and the song titles themselves. Thus the images significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and thus their use on this page falls within policy.
 * 8 - ...The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable."...
 * Merely decorative could be viewed as subjective, but this is how I interpret it. If the page contained random images of band members etc then I believe those images would rightly be described as merely decorative. However the images of the album covers is important in understanding each title released. In a specific instance from this page there is a distinction to be made between the covers of the US and the UK releases of Help! (album) which cannot be understood without the images.
 * 1,2,3b,4,5,6,7,9,10
 * The use of images as previously existed on this page falls within the boundaries of each of the policies described in these sections.

Thus in summary I believe the previous use of fair-use images that existed on this page fell within policy, but challenged the guideline under the common sense & occasional exception criterion, and so the images should be restored.
 * Non-free content is a guideline and NOT a policy - and as such it is stated at the top of that page that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - the key phrase from that guideline is Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary). 
 * Note that the issue of critical commentary is only mentioned in this guideline and NOT in any policy page. Thus the frequent use of this argument has NOTHING to do with existing policy.
 * I believe that this discography is a suitable common sense exception.

Agree

 * 1) Jooler 09:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I think the last week or so of purging any album covers from discographies has been ridiculous. I agree with the points made above. Sam Orchard 10:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree. This One Man Album Cover Removal Crusade is totally ridiculous. DVdm 11:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't one man, at all. Several people have been part of it, with the support of a lot more. J Milburn 12:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah come on, just look at his contributions list. He breathes images removal around the clock. The man is dangerously obsessed. DVdm 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm obsessed as well, though I have not done very many I have been removing fair use galleries. I don't see a justification for this. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 12:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Add me to the obsessed list. I am obviously completely nuts, what with trying to further Wikipedia's goals and all that. J Milburn 12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that 13 different editors have contributed to removing fair use galleries/lists listed on the User:Durin/Fair use overuse. I'm not even the most active contributor there. I'm hardly one person operating independently. --Durin 05:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's not something I do round the clock but I'll remove non-free images from discographies and other lists when I come across them too. Removed a bunch of logos from various Philipino voleyball league articles recently for exmaple. --Sherool (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Steelbeard1 11:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree completely. See my notes to Talk:Island Masters.--Reinhard P. Braun 11:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that example is completely a violation of the fair use rules if ever these was one. Obvious gallery. Sorry, but in that instance there is no way a gallery is permissible. Moreschi Talk 11:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Gallery" is a way to place the scans on the page in relation to the text, and it's a possibility to access easily the bigger image. --Reinhard P. Braun 12:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree.Snow1215 17:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree. --Thankyoubaby 18:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree, though in following this debate over multiple pages I have become increasingly discouraged that no amount of discussion, no matter how well thought-out, logical, or well-intentioned, will change policy nor convince those who cling to their literal interpretations of policy to consider that it may need changing or clarification. For what it's worth, here are my 2 cents on a couple of important issues I have not yet seen addressed:
 * A) An oft-quoted policy/guideline in this debate is that fair use images are "for identification and critical commentary, not for identification without critical commentary." However, this does not specify what is meant by "critical commentary," nor whether this commentary must be about the image itself or about the subject of the image. In my opinion, an article which discusses an album justifies use of the album's cover in the article, as there is certainly critical commentary of the album being provided, though not necessarily of the cover itself. As the cover is only part of the album, and the album is being discussed, critical commentary is being provided in most cases. In a discography the issue is not as clear, though the argument could be made that factual and referenced information about an album provided in a discography constitutes critical commentary of that album.
 * B) I think everyone pretty much agrees with the policy that fair-use images should only be used in situations where no free images can be created to replace them. However, in the case of an album cover it would seem that it is impossible to create a free image, as any photograph of the album will still show the copyrighted artwork. It has also been brought up that, unlike in the case of a painting or photograph, an image of an album's cover comprises only a portion of a larger copyrighted packaging and product (excluding back cover art, disc art, liner art, and other content). A lot of people forget that the cover is only one part of the album, which is the larger item being discussed. These points should help to justify the inclusion of album cover images in many situations as A) they are not replaceable with free images and B) they show only a portion of the copyrighted material.
 * C) I disagree with the justification that (paraphrasing) "fair use images should not be used in galleries or lists" applies here. A discography is neither a gallery or a list. A gallery contains primarily images only with little supporting informtion (I was going to point to one of the dog breed articles as an example of a gallery, but those appear to have been cleaned up). A list (such as any list of episodes) contains only minimal identifying information. A discography uses some elements of both galleries and lists, but provides more information than either (most discographies on Wikipedia admittedly don't meet all these standards yet, but this one certainly does). The album's cover art is the primary means of visual identification with the album and thus serves as an important piece of information on that album (whereas in the case of episode lists the image usually does not serve this purpose).
 * D) Most of the admins removing the images have talked a lot about "downstream use" and how others who copy or modify Wikipedia's content for their own purposes will be violating copyright laws if they copy the images from here. I don't feel this is at all a valid argument for removing fair use images from Wikipedia when their criteria for inclusion are being met. First of all, if someone else uses Wikipedia content for their own purposes then it is they who are liable for the way it is used, not Wikipedia. Second, the tags on the images clearly state what the copyright issues are and that their use outside Wikipedia may not constitute a valid application of fair use laws. It is not Wikipedia's fault if downstream users do not read these warnings or choose to ignore them. We should not let concern over what "downstream users" will do with WP content affect our ability to use fair use images in a consistent and defensible manner.
 * That's all for now, I am very tired and have lost the spirit for addressing this issue. Maybe this was not the most pertinent place to bring up all these points but I hope they contribute to more discussion. --IllaZilla 09:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said. Jooler 09:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The cover art is a separate work, and needs to be the subject of critical commentary. It might conceptually be part of "the album" but in terms of copyright it's separate. There are at least half a dozen articles on individual Beatles albums which already have plenty of critical commentary about the cover art, see below. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No bainer, under U.S. law it doesn't. U.S. judges will consider the purpose of the whole page.  You may be a law student in Australia, but User:wikidemo is a practising lawyer, specialising in copyright law, in the States.  See his edit here. Jheald 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically on downstream use, these sites will also be able to claim fair use. Being commercial is weighed in the balance on the first factor, but fair use here is so established that it would apply for eg a commercial newspaper, just as much as for Wikipedia.  Downstream reusability is therefore not an factor here.  That leaves only the question of what the balance of the community wants to allow.  And I for one think this page is much more than just a gallery or a list, and that the covers make a contribution which is much more than decorative to a survey of the Beatles' published recorded output.  Jheald 23:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree. The images contribute significantly to the article. The focus on requiring "critical commentary" is based on wording in a guideline, not policy, and has no basis in law, foundation policy, or Wikipedia consensus. While "critical commentary" (a phrase I dislike in this context because an encyclopedia should not be "criticizing" anyway) can help bolster a fair-use claim, it is not the only way an image becomes fair use. Also, the below comments on "polling is evil" fail to realize that polling is evil only when used to set policy without adequate discussion. When it is used to gauge existing consensus while a discussion is going on, it is perfectly valid, especially when there is a dispute about whether consensus even exists or not. DHowell 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus not going to change the stance on this issue. Thus, polling to ascertain consensus (which is a very weak mechanism for ascertaining consensus anyways), is meaningless in this case. If you want Wikipedia to have a more liberal approach to the inclusion of fair use images all over discographies, then approach the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm sure they will be happy to hear your request. --Durin 03:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument might be valid if we were talking about Foundation policy. However, I stated quite plainly above, "critical commentary" is not a requirement of Foundation, but of a rather unpopular guideline which does not have consensus. And as far as I am aware, the Foundation has never expressly prohibited album covers in discographies. I might change my mind if you can show me clear evidence to the contrary. DHowell 09:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They have prohibited fair use galleries, which is what this is. That's like saying 'The rules don't say I can't create an attack page on Tom Smith, they just say I can't create an attack page.' J Milburn 10:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're fond of analogies and methaphors. I think what you are saying is that a discography is a subset of a gallery and this is where I fundamentally disagree. Jooler 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "They have prohibited fair use galleries..." Actually I don't believe they have. Can you come up with a citation for that bald assertion? DHowell 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in so many words, as far as I know, no. I generally stick to the spirit of the policy rather than the letter, as I have said over and over again. What is important is to accept the spirit of the encyclopedia- this is what the Wikimedia foundation have said- "Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." 'Minimal use' and 'narrow limits on articles about copyrighted contemporary works' says to me that such a gallery would be unnaceptable. Would you post all the lyrics on an article about the album? Would you post scans of every picture in a book? Would you have a screenshot for every episode of a series, or ever scene in a film? No, of course not, and, in the same vein, we shouldn't have the album covers here. J Milburn 16:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) I completely disagree with what you are saying- excessive amounts of album covers in discography articles are just as bad as any other copyright breachs- hundreds of an artist's pieces, hundreds of front pages from newspapers, hundreds of screenshots from a website... This is no different. However, I think the most important thing to remember is that polling is evil, and we should not have straight straw polls on the matter. J Milburn 10:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly fair use is not copyright breach. Secondly I think opinions have become lost in the discussion, it's not clear who thinks what. That is why I have started this poll. Jooler 11:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course fair use is not a copyright breach. Sadly, this isn't fair use. J Milburn 12:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * By what definition? I think it is fair-use. Jooler 13:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and voting is evil. Voting here will not override policy. How is the use of countless images in a list that provides no critical commentary of any sort anything but decorative? The distinction between the UK and US albums is a fine example, but those pictures belong in the article on the album, not here where no critical commentary is provided. This is just a list of albums, and as such fair use media is really not permissibly, certainly not in such quantities. Moreschi Talk 11:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly the poll is not about "overriding policy", but the interpretation of existing policy. Secondly critical commentary is not a policy issue. That is only mentioned in the guideline as above. Jooler 11:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but "Merely decorative" is. I do not see how the use of countless images in a list like this - a list with no annotations, yet - can be regarded as anything other than decorative. I've yet to see a convincing reason as why this list should be an exception to the general rules. For that matter, I've yet to see why the use of all these pics here is not copyright infringement. Album cover pictures are supposed to be used in articles on albums, not to decorate lists. Moreschi Talk 11:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and I have covered the interpretation of Merely decorative. See above. Jooler 13:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Moreschi, you disagree with discographies within Wikipedia. That's another case! The moment you've taken away the images from a discography not much sense remains for the discography as such. That's why I absolutely can't agree with your fight against me and others. But be shure - I will give up early. I'm not a fighter.--Reinhard P. Braun 12:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No. A discography is nothing more clever than a list of albums. There's gazillions of information on an album you can include in an list without the cover. Moreschi Talk 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hardly just a clever list. A discography explores the evolution of a band both stylistically and by membership and management. Re The Beatles compare the early albums which just have the band posing with the later artistically inspired covers. Ohh but we can't because we have no images here. As they say a picture paints a thousand words and aids intepretation. Jooler 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel like taking an axe to the screen. Yes, you're right. But only if you provide some annotations to that effect as critical commentary pointing that out, with some images used to illustrate the point. It's an easy solution - why not??? Just provide some commentary and some images are OK. Moreschi Talk 14:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your answer is "provide a commentary and it will be all right" - but commentary has nothing to do with the policy as I said above. Only the guideline. Therefore any claim about it being breach of policy if it does not have a commentary and a commentary fixing the problem has no logical foundation. An addition of a commentary has no bearing on whether the images are a breach of policy or not. The word commentary is not mentioned in the policy document at all. The display of the images in context both chronologically and alongside the track listings gives makes them more than merely decorative, they are educational. Jooler 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Critical commentary is part of fair use law. The policy can't extend to anything which the law doesn't permit, and the law requires that the work be used for a valid fair use purpose; the purpose that could be applicable in this context is critical commentary. --bainer (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Critical commentary is part of fair use law." - I don't think that's correct at all. In this context the images are being use to educate not as part of a critical analysis. It's one of the founding principles of Wikipedia that articles are witten NPOV without one-sided criticism. These articles can only report criticism. Jooler 09:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) First, voting is evil. Second, a simple fix could solve this issue entirely.  The less iconic covers aren't necessary, in my opinion.  For, say, Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road (and I'm sure one or two others may fit as well), adding the image with critical commentary about the album's cover, that's sufficient.  It can't be too hard to take a little bit from List of images on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and from the relevant section on Abbey Road (album).  Hell, three or four of the other albums have info on the covers.  By just using some of this existing commentary, the images would be perfectly fine.  Ral315 » 03:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This a very good proposal. Smart thinking! nadav (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. --bainer (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake. Smart thinking, bainer! (But also smart thinking to Rai since he thought of it independently)

Polls are evil

 * 1) Aye. Riana ⁂   10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The aim of this poll is not to change anything but to clarify who thinks what. I have found it very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in the discussion above. Jooler 11:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Same here. In addition, a poll on this page is not going to change the fact that cover images are not used in discography pages if the cover is fair use. There ain't that many free content cd covers out there, either, so untill there's a change to our EDP, or a change in Foundation stance, this just isn't going to happen, methinks. - M  ask? 11:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) First get expert legal advice. There are two very different issues here. First, what is legal.  Second, what is desirable.  The brutal truth is, before you can have a discussion like this on what is or is not desirable, (and/or what is or is not appropriate as an interpretation of WP policy), you must first settle beyond doubt the issue of what is or is not legal -- how much distinctive relevant content does there need to be on a page, before use of the cover image is beyond doubt legal.   Whatever I say or you say at the end of the day will cut little ice with people like Durin, or people who are persuaded by Durin.   What is needed is a real specialist copyright lawyer's advice.  There are some as users on Wikipedia.  Alternatively, maybe you can get the Fair Use Project at Stanford, which seems to be set up for this purpose, to consider this, and set out an expert view as to what is needed of this page before, from a legal perspective, the inclusion of the discography images is reliably safe.
 * Yes, WP seems to be in copyright paranoia mode this week. But that paranoia will not be shifted by your or my argument or complaints.  The real best first step is to get expert qualified advice from the experts.  Only then can a discussion on what is desirable be held by participants with legal clarity, rather than the present legal fear and confusion which is so predominant.  Jheald 11:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether this is legal or not, it is not at all desirable by our policies. Taking advantage of the fair use law should be an absolute last resort for us- many people's arguments seem to be 'this is probably legal, let's go for it!' Frankly, I personally have more respect for Wikipedia's policies than I do for the law. US law doesn't matter to me. As for 'copyright paranoia mode', I certainly haven't noticed anything. We have been copyright paranoid for as long as I have been here, and rightly so. J Milburn 12:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Polls are evil. No doubt. J Milburn 12:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Fair use is not a voting issue. You use fair use sparingly and only where it's absolutely essential, not wherever you can legally get away with it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Legal fears aren't the only concern here. We're trying to create a free encyclopedia, that idea is fucked when you start adding needless non free images to articles. We have great difficulty in using articles decorated with unnecessary copyrighted images. Not only should we follow policy, but common sense dictates we should try to not use non free images unless they are absolutely fundamental to the concepts covered in the article. That's not the case with the vast majority to images being used in articles on albums and away from the most famous albums, including an image of, say The Blithering Idiots new album "Blithering Vol 7" isn't going to help anybody understand the article. My compromise would be to allow album covers on the Top 100 albums as defined by say Rolling Stone or some other respected authority, along with artwork for the Billboard Top 100, UK Top 40 albums and singles (perhaps Japan, France and Germany too) for as long as they remain in the charts or until a year after their release. Nick 12:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Sorry but no. You need to justify the use of each image. I can't see it justified to have all those images. All they serve is decoration. You can get away with text and perhaps one or two album covers, but thats it. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 12:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and voting is evil. Moreschi Talk 12:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah don't forget that ;). I support that notion. :P ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 12:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) In Soviet Russia, fair use violates you. – Steel 12:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I vote that voting is evil.  ShadowHalo 19:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a number. Keep fair use images to as minimum. In all honesty, you have to ask the purpose of these images in discographys.  I mean, if they're already in the album's article, why are they needed in the discography?  You don't put all the information in the album's article in the discography, do you, so what's the reason for adding the cover art image?  I don't see any justification for it. Hiding Talk 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Waaaaay too many non-free images on one page. It would make the list have more non-free content than free content. Fair use images should be used judiciously in small does to add to existing text, not as a way to form an album cover gallery. The very idea is completely opposed to our non-free content formulation and what Wikipedia has been understood to be since its inception. Furthermore, I object to the use of polls to tacitly change policy, notwithstanding claims to the contrary. nadav (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Voting is indeed evil. Ral315 » 03:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The poll is meaningless. What some people are failing to understand is that this debate regarding fair use goes to the very core of what Wikipedia is about. We began, have been, are, and will continue to be a free content encyclopedia as much as possible. We can not and will not undermine this core principle via any consensus mechanism on this project, even if every single person in the debate agreed the policy is wrong and we should allow fair use as some would like to see here. I've repeatedly asked certain people to approach the foundation regarding this issue due to this fact. To my knowledge, not one of you has approached the foundation. Instead we, those who have tried arduously to educate you on this matter, are taken to task and told we are in the wrong because our opinion is a minority one (not to mention the fact that it clearly isn't). It as if some of you are arguing we should be building a plane, when all along we have been building skyscraper. The two principles are completely incompatible with one another. You can not and will not change a core philosophy of Wikipedia via a poll. Every interpretation of this policy to date has stood in favor of less fair use, not more. You will not change this philosophy because it is the very foundation on which we are built. --Durin 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have singularly and consistently failed to understand that I am not suggesting that the policy is wrong. I am saying that the use of images on this page falls within the existing policy. Jooler 09:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You have singularly and consistently failed to understand that the use of these images does not fall under policy, and is contrary to Wikipedia's goals. J Milburn 09:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And your only agrgument supporting that claim is the lack of critical commentary, which is not part of the policy. Add critical commentary and we could have as many images as we like you say. The key point is that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. The arrangement of this page with the intro, its chronological ordering and track descriptions, the chart postions, the release dates etc accompanying the images of the covers makes this page far more than a mere gallery or list. Jooler 09:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All of that has nothing to do with the cover art. --bainer (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the release dates etc accompanying the images of the covers makes this page far more than a mere gallery or list [of cover art]' - clearer? Jooler 12:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the cover art as a copyrighted work. --bainer (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with the cover art as copyrighted work. It is the justification of the display of copyrighted work under fair use in the context of education. 12:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, Jooler, please find one place I have mentioned the need for critical commentary. That is not our 'only argument', at all, and not one that I have used once. To see my arguments, please read this, which is intended to explain briefly to new users why I have removed images. J Milburn 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry perhaps you personally haven't put forward that argument on this on this page but it has been singled out as a way of allowing the images to be included on this page. I was confusing you with User:Moreschi. If there is another argument then it is the claim that this page is a "mere galleries or list". I have yet to look at the link you supply above. And please don't patronise those who "fail to understand the policy" as "new users'" I've been here since 2002. Jooler 12:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right I've read your opinion piece (for that's all it is) and it adds nothing. The only salient point in that essay is - "However, what is it actually adding to the article on the discography, or the artist? Not a lot." - well that is only your opinion it is not part of policy and as an opinion it can be disputed. And I do, and the reasons are given above. Jooler 12:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware you are an old user, you just don't seem particuarly aquainted with Wikipedia's ways. In any case, I did not call you a new user, I simply said that I wrote that to educate new users, so I am not going to pretend it was a groundbreaking piece of rhetoric or anything. The point is that you are too busy looking at the rules to understand them. To put it another way, you can't see the forest for the trees. You think, somehow, that Wikipedia will be furthered by layering copyrighted images onto this page, and you have failed to grasp the fact that we are meant to be free. Stop looking at these patronising and overly complex rules, and sit back and think what Wikipedia is actually about. These images add little to the article, beyond making it prettier. That is not fair use, and that is not what we want Wikipedia to be. J Milburn 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget the pointless metaphors they don't add to the discussion one whit. The use of non-free images in an of itself does not preclude the possibility of Wikipedia being a free encyclopaedia. So don't pretend the opposite. If I am "busy looking at the [patronising] rules" that is merely because it is "the rules" that are being quoted at me. The claim "that these images add little to the article, beyond making it prettier." is nothing but your opinion and has NOTHING to do with policy or what Wikipedia is about. So the insistence that you are following policy by removing images from this page is without foundation. The restoration of images on this page is justifiable under the interpretation of the policies and spirit of Wikipedia as laid out above. If the policy is open to multiple interpretations that is the fault of the policy makers. If your interpretation of policy differs from mine, so be it, but please don't pretend that you are following some higher goal here. Jooler 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as you don't like metaphors, I will say nothing about flogging dead horses, and instead just rely on the fact that there are enough people with half a brain that this discussion doesn't need me here, getting angry. I will probably be back. J Milburn 16:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not actually convinced one way or the other about the legality of the fair use claims here with the article in its current condition--though it certainly seems derivative rather than transformative to me. And I don't honestly see how this is any different than the episode list discussion which was already decided upon. But I think that the only reasonable solution to this issue would be that outlined below in how to guarantee inclusion of images. I don't understand the backlash to the idea of adding "critical commentary" of the covers when it would augment the article as a whole, AND most of the material necessary to do so in the discography article already exists on wikipedia. Without commentary I would say this article definitely doesn't follow the guideline of using non-free images sparingly. The fact is, without and commentary about the covers themselves, the images are being provided only for identification purposes. Many people have taken this to mean they are decorative, which I would tend to agree with. I also don't like the implication that keeps being made here that the people who are against the inclusion of the images as paranoid and/or bureaucratic. The fact is--and some of you may not be aware--U.S. courts have recently ruled very narrowly on what is considered fair use. That said, most of my case knowledge here is from DMCA infringements, but I believe it is a good indicator of the direction of U.S. copyright policy. Sorry for the rant, but it needed to be said.--Shadowdrak 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Very useful read
I have just been shown Durin's interpretation of our fair use overuse, actually specifically mentioning this page. I reccomend all those interested in this debate have a read. J Milburn 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How to guarantee inclusion of the images
Using images of album covers in this article would be fine if the images were accompanied by critical commentary about the covers. If such a task is possible for any artist, surely it is for the Beatles; look at the material we already have about the covers of the White album, Abbey Road, Revolver, Please Please Me, With The Beatles and of course, Sgt Pepper. It might require some shuffling around, but the discography would be a fantastic venue to discuss themes in the covers over time. --bainer (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. You wouldn't need all the images, mind, but some would be perfectly permissible if bainer's conditions were met. Moreschi Talk 12:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But even then you don't need every album cover they released, just the iconic ones. Just those that have a change in theme. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 12:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See also Beatles for Sale, Help! (album), Rubber Soul. There's a goldmine of material to draw on already. --bainer (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking for permission
Can't the Wikimedia Foundation just ask the record companies or whoever if we can use the images on discography pages? They'll probably let us. – Zntrip 00:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Requesting copyright permission, it's not enough to get permission to use on Wikipedia, discographies or any other kind of limited area. Material must be released under a free license (wich is unftunately unlikely for most cover art) or comply with every point of the Non-free content criteria. --Sherool (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So if all the copyright holders consent to the album covers being used in discography pages, why can't we use them? – Zntrip 01:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we are a free content encyclopedia. --Durin 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because that would only allow us to use them, only in one area. Wikipedia is not made just to be hosted on this site, it is a free content project, we want other to take it, and use it and modify it however they wish. The label giving us permission to have it only on discography pages means that others cant use them, and cant change them (i.e. use on non-discography pages). This is rather clearly not compatible with the goals and aims of the Wikimedia Foundation, or of Wikipedia as a project. - M  ask? 07:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the best ways to understand why this will not work is to think of our mirrors. If we have permission to use these album covers, sites like answers.com will still be using them, but will not have permission. This is a problem. J Milburn 07:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And of course that was recognised in the Foundation's licensing policy resolution, which confirmed the previously de facto situation that "by permission" images are not permitted on any of the projects. --bainer (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, all of this has already been decided by the foundation, and there is no way that discussing it on an article talk page, or even on a policy talk page, is going to change it. J Milburn 07:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But what about Image:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg? Can't it be the same thing as that? The AP gave Wikipedia permission to use this image. – Zntrip 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That kind of permission is just meant to strengthen existing fair use rationales. Use of the image still has to conform to WP:NONFREE. The Tiananmen picture meets the criteria, but a gallery of album cover photos doesn't. nadav (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Use of the image still has to conform to WP:NONFREE." - not neccesarily. WP:NONFREE is a guideline and is therefore subject to the rider "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." and in anycase as I have described above the whole is more than the sum of the parts and this page with its contextual information is much more than a mere list or gallery. Jooler 22:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is not some odd exception with respect to the guideline and other discographies. Plus, WP:NONFREE is a guideline on how WP:NFCC (a policy) should be applied.  17Drew 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sie Liebt Sich?
In the Canadian Singles it lists "Sie Liebt Sich". Is this correct? It seems doubtful because it means "she loves herself" or alternately formal for "You love yourself". Did somebody change this as a joke or was it really released in Canada thus?--Shadowdrak 17:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sie Liebt Dich (hoffentlich)--Peter Eisenburger 06:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Albums vs. songs
Hi everyone! Thanks for good work and all the information available here! Listening to some Beatles, I looked up here to find the discography. I have one comment for improvement..
 * When looking up the discography for albums, it's a little hard to find the information.. because the titles are in rather small font and all the songs are listed. Wouldn't it be better to just list the albums here? And then have the songs on each album listed in the article about that album? Or have one section with just the albums and one with the songs included? Geir 14:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Total album/singles sales
Counting the number of singles sold based on the RIAA certifications is not very concise. The number (42 million in the States) is the minimum, probably not the actual number. After all, not all the platinum sellers would have sold exactly 1 million. The fact that they are platinum certified, but not doubly so, would also occur if a single has sold 1,9 million.

Suggestions to improve the article
'I wrote the following request to start a constructive debate about the structure of this article about five months ago - in March 2007. With the exception of a single response (discussing a valid aspect about one very specific issue) there were no responses. This is such an important article about the Beatles. I genuinely believe there ought to be some changes in sequencing and categorizing. But I would prefer to build consensus rather than making unilateral changes. So again I invite people to read my observations and engage in debate about the topic. I look forward to responses!'

First of all - hats off to all the people who have worked so hard to assemble information for this article. it is apparent that a lot of effort has gone into it.

I would like to make some constructive suggestions of how I think the article could be improved. In some cases to make it more logical to read. And in other cases to reflect some factual issues.

I would not presume to make any of the changes I suggest without discussion and input from others who obviously care about this article a lot.

1) It has rightly been noted that the discography is not easy to comprehend - because of the fact that there were different releases in various countries. So it is incumbent upon us to make it as clear as can be.

2) In addition to the difference of releases in UK, US and Canada - there were actually many different releases in other countries. That would probably be too confusing to address in this article.  However - down the road - some adventurous souls may wish to create a separate article to at least note the major different releases.

Anyway - that is not the main thing I want to address.

3) It certainly makes sense that there are different sections for UK, US and Canada. However - one key suggestion. The Beatles releases were always viewed (in their time) as a body of work.  Singles, EPs and albums.  So I think it more useful to list the Singles and EP releases for each country - in their respective national sections.

Noting that in the 1960s in the UK - singles were releases unto themselves. And very important. They were NOT (as they were in the US - and as they became in the UK from the 1970s onwards - tracks taken from albums for release AS singles to promote an album. They were works in and of themselves.  And very important to the Beatles.

Given their importance to the Beatles - perhaps the discography should lead off with their singles - in chron. sequence of course,

Followed by their albums.

The EPs (with two exceptions) were compiled from already-issued albums and singles tracks - and should follow after the albums.

4) This pattern could repeat for the US and Canadian releases.

5) The article makes a useful distinction between studio albums and later "compilation" albums. The point is well-taken.  I think there is room for a further few refinements.  Ones that would accurately reflect some distinctions that the Beatles themselves make.

I think there should be a distinction made between the official releases created and/or sanctioned by the Beatles and Apple. Which means everything from 1962 to 1970. And then from 1987 onwards.

Between 1970 and 1987 there were numerous releases initiated by EMI (in the UK) and Capitol (in the US) that did NOT have the sanction of - nor input from - the Beatles. These releases were primarily compilations - but also include "Hollywood Bowl". They also include singles that the Beatles themselves did not regard as official singles releases. It was only the settlement of the legal battles between Apple/Beatles in 1986 that led to the change and the policy that no releases could come out without official sanction of the Beatles/Apple.

Starting with the two "Past Masters" compilations - and then all the releases from "Live At BBC" onwards - these are Beatles releases in the true meaning of the words. Ordained, sequenced, sanctioned by the Beatles. Even "Collection of Oldies" in 1966 had approval of Brian Epstein and the Beatles - and the inclusion of a track unreleased in the UK.

But every release from after the "Let It Be" album and the "Let It Be" single (in 1970) to the "Past Masters" volumes and the "Live At BBC" album were PURELY record company initiated. George Martin was consulted on some releases (eg the "Hollywood Bowl" album which he actually produced). But George Martin was not acting on behalf of the Beatles. The Beatles in those years did not have legal clout or leverage over EMI. And the releases that came out 1970-1986 should be seen as record company compilations, reissues and releases. The Beatles official discography re-starts in either 1987 with the two Past Masters CDs - or with the "Live At BBC" album. And everything since then is an official release.

One can certainly see the distinction between the various compilations issued in the 1970s and the "Anthology" series in the 1990s. And that should be reflected in this article. A difference in effect between the creative works of the artist -which represents a canon of an artist's work. And in the 1970-1986 era - the (quite legal) exploitation of some of those works by the artist's record company. Certainly lawful. But they were purely commercial undertakings as distinct from a part of the artist's canon of work.

Perhaps the best way to do this would be re-characterize the lists. There would be official Beatles releases - all the records from 1962 to 1970. Then again from 1987 (or 1994) onwards.

With a separate section. "Record Company Compilations & Releases"

This would cover all those releases - including "Hollywood Bowl" and the various singles reissues etc that had NOT been sactioned by the Beatles.

6) Another abberation that should be addressed...  The multiple releases of the Hamburg material - the vast majority (if not all) was originally released as The Beat Brothers (or not credited at all except to Tony Sheridan) and was only subsequently released as The Beatles.

Perhaps there should be a section titled "The Hamburg Recordings" - with a brief preamble about the recordings. And then a list of the multiple incarnations of the recordings. In any event - I don't think they belong in the same list as the official Beatles recordings.

7) Given the importance that the Beatles - and music critics - attributed to the band's evolution over the years - particularly from 1965 onwards - perhaps there should also be a succinct release chronology 1962-1970 - ie the years that the Beatles were active.  Year by year - listing all the singles, albums (and the two EPs containing ORIGINAL material) in exact sequence with release date.

I look forward to a spirited debate on this. I hope my suggestions are taken in the spirit they are offered - and no one takes offense. Thanks Davidpatrick 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing all this up. I for one appreciate the thought and effort, and I also appreciate your opening this up for discussion before changing the article.  Reviewing what you've said, it all makes sense, and I really think you're on to something here.  What I'm not totally clear on is how you are proposing to reorganize the article overall.  Right now there are separate sections for studio albums, compilations, EPs, and singles, and within each of those are subsections for the UK, the U.S., and Canada.  Are you suggesting that this be switched, with the main sections by country and the subsections by type of release?  In other words, I'm pretty sure I agree with most of what you're saying, but could you please summarize how you think the article should be structured in terms of sections and subsections?  — Mudwater  12:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you say here. I think the article would be improved by taking your suggestion one step further.  I would argue a list of releases in painstaking detail of all the minor variations for the UK, US, Canada and other countries is to be of little interest for anyone outside of fan circles.  Instead I think the main focus of the article should be the artistic vision of the group as they recorded the music and their vision of each single, album and EP they created.  Take an ablum like 'Something New' it is a record company mishmash of songs designed to maximise sales in the US not an artistic vision like 'Beatles For Sale'.  The records the group released in the UK 62-70 are the artistic creations of the group.  US and other releases are footnotes to the groups creations as they were beyond their artistic control.  This is not to belittle the cutural significance of these releases, but this page should be primarily about their artistic creations.  I propose that only the UK records should have full track listings (if any) in this article as every album can be quickly and easily accessed through its own wikilink.simonthebold 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Very gratified to have had these two responses. Perhaps there will be others too. Meanwhile I am preparing a suggestion of how a re-formatted article might look. ie - the Segment headings and sequence. And suggestion of how to deal with anomalies etc.

A few quick thoughts.

I think the original intent of the Beatles/George Martin and their original UK releases is of paramount importance. It should be listed first and placed in historical context. (eg explaining and reflecting the importance - at the time - of singles releases.) It is the foundation on which the rest of the world's Beatles releases were based. And the importance to the Beatles of their UK catalogue is underscored by the fact that when the Beatles eventually (in the mid-1980s) wrested a measure of control over their recordings from EMI - they insisted on standardizing their catalogue for worldwide CD release based on the original UK releases. (With a couple of adaptations such as the MMT album for pragmatic reasons.)

On the other hand - even though the content of the US releases was primarily record company ordained (and in some cases those releases tampered with the audio mixes created by George Martin and the Beatles) - we cannot entirely relegate the US releases. They had immense commercial and cultural impact in the US at the time. Millions of US Beatles fans between 1964-1986 grew up with those releases as official Beatles releases. (Which they were in legal terms - if not in artistic terms.) The intricacies of how they came about were not known at the time. And the fact that Apple eventually acquiesced to demand to release two box sets of some of the Capitol releases was an acknowledgement of that cultural impact.

So there has to be a full reflection of the US releases. But it should quite properly follow AFTER the primary catalogue is detailed. And there needs to be a succinct note that explains how and why the US releases differed from the official UK releases. And why the Beatles appeared on so many different labels in the US (VeeJay, Tollie, Swan, Capitol, United Artists, Polydor Apple etc etc)

There need to be some brief preambles before certain sections. In an era of mp3s and digital downloads - the concept of 7" vinyl singles, 4-track EPs and 12" vinyl albums will not be understood by every reader. And the relative importance to the Beatles (at the time) of those different formats needs to be succinctly explained.

There should definitely be a distinction between releases at different times. A) During the Beatles' active period 1962-1970. ie releases as prepared by the Beatles/George Martin. B)  Record Company compilations, releases and reissues 1970-1987. C) Releases after the Beatles/Apple gained partial-control over their catalogue 1987 onwards.

There needs to be a separate section for "The Hamburg Recordings" or "The Polydor Recordings" - as these were not recorded as - or officially part of the Beatles' canon of work. Though of course the recordings were extensively exploited under the Beatles name AFTER their first success.

There probably should be a standardized format of footnotes or some other way of dealing with the various anomalies.

Those are my interim thoughts. Davidpatrick 15:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who has also contributed quite a bit to this article, I'd like to say that I agree with the thoughts presented here so far and like where this is going. This article should better reflect the UK catalogue as being the embodiment of the Beatles work. When I have a moment I will try to also present some input to help out with the new and improved article. Snow1215 17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As the person who originally entered the US (and then the UK) singles charts, let me offer this -- when I first saw the discography (UK and US singles) it was rife with misinformation and incorrect data.  The peak positions were (for the most part) wholly incorrect, and didn't jibe with the Billboard charts (for US singles) or the UK Singles Charts (for the UK singles).   I corrected all of that, and formatted both lists into the tables they (still, in large part) appear in.  My references were all cited and notated.   I see that many hands, with no reference, have been on the material since (correcting typos that aren't, in fact, typos -- but actual misspellings of titles on the released single, etc) and rendered it less than accurate.  (The Vee Jay 498 single, for instance, shows the title as "Ask My Way" not "Ask Me Why";  The Swan 4182 single does _not_ have the artist listed as "DIE BEATLES" -- yes, it's a German language recording, but it's not from Germany, it's from the US, on the Swan record label, and the labelling was in English for the American audience to which it was marketed.  If the person who made that edit actually _owns_ a Swan 4182 single with that printed on it, it is an obvious forgery. (yes, I do own a 4182 pressing, and the printing is entirely in English)).
 * Anyhow, I digress (considerably...)


 * The original listing (by me) of singles on this page was in the order they were released (and, in most cases, subsequently made it onto the charts [Billboard in the US, UK Singles Chart in the UK]) as singles. It still (roughly) resembles that, but I see your point, too -- where is the chronological listing of what was available (and when!)? (...not to mention, where?)  This page has grown quite a bit since I last contributed (which means, I guess, that I should contribute more often, maybe?), and it is starting to look at bit less "cohesive" than I remember it, then...Brian.D 19:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To Davidpatrick, who started this section, and also to any other editors, I would repeat my previous request: Could you please summarize how you think the article should be structured in terms of sections and subsections? To Brian.D: I would encourage you to "re-improve" the material about the singles. Also, if the release titles are different from the standard, currently accepted titles, perhaps that should specifically be noted to avoid confusion by readers and editors.  — Mudwater  02:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Global rerelease?
see Talk:The Beatles discography/Rerelease —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon123 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the supporting citation? Without one, the page should be deleted. Steelbeard1 14:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Without any supporting citations to back up the info, the info is speculation and does not belong in Wikipedia so the above page has been deleted. Steelbeard1 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is speculation and thats why its a talk page not an article! So the page has been restored. simonthebold 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ...with a disclaimer added at the very beginning of the talk page saying it is speculation. Steelbeard1 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

US v. UK v. Corpus
As a non-expert on the Beatles I'm a little fuzzy here about the final status of the Beatles' corpus of studio releases (lets ignore anthologies, bootlegs, rarities, etc.). At the end of everything is the total corpus of all 12 albums the same or different if you compare US and British editions? If not, what's missing? Are their major songs that are not in these canonical 12 (i.e. hit singles not put on albums)? When EMI released their CDs (1987?) were those like the British or American editions? Also, w/r/t compilations, does some complete (or mostly complete) compilation exist today? Thanks! 140.180.166.176 02:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The UK releases are canonical, and the original CD releases mirror them except for Magical Mystery Tour. (That CD is the same as the US LP which included singles in addition to the contents of the UK double-EP.) With the addition of the two "Past Masters" CDs (for the singles, etc., that did not appear on UK albums), the CDs were supposed to make a complete set of the released works. I forget if that was actually true or not. Subsequent releases such as the Anthology series has expanded the catalog to include alternate takes and mixes, and Live at the BBC expanded the live performances. John Cardinal 06:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The 1987/88 CD releases cover everything The Beatles and EMI released commercially in the UK from 1962 to 1970. Steelbeard1 10:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So I read somewhere that if you pick up the 12 albums on CD, plus Magical Mystery Tour, Past Masters 1 & 2, and Anthology 1-3 you'd have pretty much all there is. Is that a valid statement? I see songs on US track lists that don't appear on the UK ones (I Want to Hold Your Hand is one example)-- so where on that list of CDs would I find that track? I think it's on Past Masters. I'm thinking of starting to buy things so I'd like to know what I really want to pick up. What this article could use, IMHO, is something that explains exactly my question-- what is the state of the catalog as it is currently available on CD? Lord Bodak 16:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The only beef I have with the current Beatles CD catalogue is with the CD versions of A Hard Day's Night (album) and Beatles for Sale as both were recorded on four tracks which allow for good stereo mixes and were released in great stereo mixes on LPs, but are in mono on CD. I do enjoy my own homemade CD-R of these two albums which I recorded using my LPs to a reel to reel stereo deck which was then moved to my computer to convert to MP3s which I used to burn the CD-R.  Let's hope newly remastered CDs of these albums become available from Apple/Parlophone.  The LPs I used are from my copy of The Beatles Collection and I took the photo of the box and contents in the article about this box set. Steelbeard1 17:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With everything I've read about the way the industry uses compression on remasters of classic albums, I'm thinking it's time to buy the CDs now before they get remastered. Lord Bodak 21:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Re-Creation
I suggest that someome re-create the discography page because it is VERY hard to read and to understand. 75.61.55.35 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's been some discussion about how to do that. See "Suggestions to improve the article" above.  — Mudwater  02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is This Another Compilation?
My mom played an LP album when I was younger. I remember it having a distinctly brown case and having certain tracks such as Yesterday, P.S. I Love You, Girl, and Michelle. I couldn't find it in the discography. Has anyone heard of this album? UnfriendlyFire (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be referring to EMI's mail order box set titled The Beatles Box which was issued in October 1980 on the World Records mail order label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found it. It was the Love Songs album. UnfriendlyFire (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed re-structure
Reading the above, some good points have been made. Here's what I think:

1. The UK discography should be on one page, the US on another. Sorry to Canadians, but I don't think the Canada listing is of equivalent importance. But it too should have its own page.

2. "Studio albums" should be listed in the following order and include: a) Hamburg recordings [currently not listed at all] b) Tony Sheridan LP c) Complete Silver Beatles [currently not listed] d) Please Please Me onwards to Let It Be e) Hollywood Bowl

3. Next comes compilations in order of release. Compilations should include "Yellow Submarine" (only 4 new Beatles tracks, padded out with 2 oldies and soundtrack music - not a studio album) and From Then To You (currently not included). Should also include Anthology and Beatles at the BBC, although there are technical arguments which could be levied - but common sense should prevail. Love should be a comp too. Comps will be (roughly - this list is not accurate, but approximate off the top of my head): a) Oldies but Goldies b) Yellow Submarine c) From Then to You d) 1962-66 and 1967-70 e) Magical Mystery Tour f) Hey Jude g) Rock n Roll h) Love Songs i) Beatles box (8 LPs) j) Reel Music k) Beatles Ballads l) 20 Greatest Hits m) Past Masters 1 and 2 n) Beatles at the BBC ..and so on

Also, there's the Best of George Harrison, half of which is a Beatles comp.

4. A new sub-set should be made for re-issues of note which are not technically new. This would include where album titles have changed (eg in the US Hey Jude, and the early Hamburg tapes), box-set collections and the like, and Let It Be Naked.

Singles and EPs are far more straight-forward, but could follow the same principle: Main releases to 1970; retrospectives (in the UK, "Yesterday", "Back in USSR", "With A Little Help", etc. etc. and lastly, a section for notable re-issues (1980s sequence for example).

There's a suggestion. What do people think of these points? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Liverpool Sound Collage
If this has been asked before I apologize, but the album Liverpool Sound Collage has 4 out of 5 tracks credited to the Beatles. Should it not be included on this list? Iiidonkeyiii (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate album covers
There is a problem raised by User_talk:Indopug concerning the <<--Image:Pastmastersbeatles.jpg-->> double LP sleeve which is an alternate album cover shown in the Past Masters, Volume One article. Indopug believes the double LP cover does not warrant alternate cover inclusion because it is too similar to the Volume One CD cover. A good comparison would be the Magical Mystery Tour album article because the two alternate covers shown are significantly different compared to the familiar sleeve. What do you think? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've decided to create a separate article for the Past Masters double LP to rectify the above problem. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indopug is also deleting album covers from the articles for the two Capitol Albums box sets. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Indopug is a photo polizist. He thinks his aim in life is to make all the pages look like a telephone directory.--andreasegde (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

US Creditations
Where has this dat originated from? It certainlt does not match the RIAA database. Unless anyone can supply a reason for not amending these to RIAA stated certifications, I will amend to match. i.e RIAA certification for "I Want To Hold Your Hand" is gold, here it is 5x Platinum Eight88 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How many singles were released by The Beatles?
Their article on Wiki says 40, so in this article should be mentioned the same figure.Christo jones (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article says "The Beatles released more than 40 different singles, albums, and EPs that reached number one". So that's over 40 combined singles, albums, and EPs. That doesn't mean they released 40 singles. The Beatles singles were: 1. Love Me Do 2. Please Please Me 3. From Me to You 4. She Loves You 5. I Want to Hold Your Hand 6. Can't Buy Me Love 7. A Hard Day's Night 8. I Feel Fine 9. Ticket to Ride 10. Help! 11. Day Tripper 12. Paperback Writer 13. Yellow Submarine 14. Penny Lane 15. All You Need Is Love 16. Hello Goodbye 17. Lady Madonna 18. Hey Jude 19. Get Back 20. Ballad of John and Yoko 21. Something 22. Let It Be 23. Free as a Bird 24. Real Love Those references you're listing aren't reputable resources, only fan sites which are listing re-releases and unauthorised releases not approved by The Beatles and Apple Corps. These are the singles which were included on the 1988 Past Masters singles collection, which gathered every single release not found on their albums. The last 2 were released in the 90s as part of the Anthology series. That's it: 24 singles officially released and approved by The Beatles in the UK; there are no other. VillageGreen1215 (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Beatles All Works
An article of this name has been created that seems, at least in part, redundant with this one. Should be discussed. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The name's a bit awkward anyway, and it certainly seems redundant - a merge would be the perfect remedy. 82.3.49.212 (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I favour a merge. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted a redirect (that amounted to a delete of it). If we merge, shall we include the solo stuff? Shall we change the formatting? (John User:Jwy talk) 20:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, The Beatles discography article should include only recordings by The Beatles. The work of individual Beatles belong in their respective articles only. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proper categorisation
I have read through the article (just the UK section) and I believe there are several problems with the categorisation of albums.

One issue is the definition in use for 'compilation'. I do not think albums like Live at the Hollywood Bowl or the Anthology series are compilations. My understanding of the term is that a comp is a collection of previously released material. The wiki page on comps is ambiguous, stating that compilations are 'culled from a variety of sources', but I think it is only meaningful if those sources are previous releases - or Let It Be for example could be considered a comp, which is silly. (It has one remixed 1968 track, some 1969 studio recordings, part of a live gig, and one 1970 recording made especially.)

I am also not comfortable with the distinction between canon and non-canon releases, after the group split. I don't think endorsement of subsequent albums by the group or Apple is sufficiently meaningful to warrant a separate listing. Also it's very confused - All the non-canon comps are listed in comps anyway, and there are other odd additions, such as the mono box-set re-issues, or the Beatles First LP, which I don't think belong. (They aren't compilation albums.)

And also, there are several omissions such as the From Then To You LP of 1970 and the Decca Audition LP (Complete Silver Beatles). In my opinion, all albums which are official (ie legal) qualify for inclusion, with re-issues to be ignored.

I have a suggested re-organisation which I think is more meaningful and more complete.

The main 'Canon' albums (Please Please Me to Let It Be) are fine and I would not alter that. But I think the following should be used thereafter:

1. Official albums with recordings not previously released [NB - in the order the contents were recorded]

Anthology 1 (recorded 1958 to 1964 and 1995, released 1995) - My Bonnie [With Tony Sheridan] (recorded 1961, released 1962) - The Complete Silver Beatles (recorded 1962, released 1982) - Live! at the Star Club (recorded 1962, released 1977) - Live At the BBC (recorded 1963 to 1965, released 1994) - The Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl (recorded 1964 to 1965, released 1977) - Anthology 2 (recorded 1965 to 1968 and 1995, released 1996) - Yellow Submarine (Four new Beatles tracks, recorded 1967 to 1968, released 1969) - Anthology 3 (recorded 1968 to 1970, released 1996) - No-one’s Gonna Change Our World (One Beatles track, recorded and released 1968) - Let It Be… Naked (recorded 1969 and 1970, released 2003) [technically a comp, since diff track listing to Let It Be, but includes newly released material (dialogue etc.)]

2. Official EMI/Apple-sanctioned Compilation albums

A Collection of Beatles Oldies But Goldies - From Then To You - 1962–1966 - 1967–1970 - Rock 'n' Roll Music - Best of George Harrison [One side of Beatles tracks] - Love Songs - Rarities - The Beatles Box [Set of eight new compilation LPs] - The Beatles' Ballads - Reel Music - 20 Greatest Hits - Past Masters, Volume One - Past Masters, Volume Two - Only The Beatles [cassette only] - Yellow Submarine Songtrack - The Beatles 1 - Love [Collage of recordings]

3. Official UK issues of American albums

Hey Jude - Magical Mystery Tour - The Capitol Albums, Volume 1 - The Capitol Albums, Volume 2

A similar structue could be done for singles and EPs. The canon is Love Me Do to Let It Be, plus Baby It's You/Free As A Bird/Real Love. Other 'official' singles would come next, and include for example Tony Sheridan and the Xmas flexis. And then comes what are effectively re-issues of earlier releases - Yesterday, Back in the USSR etc, and perhaps also the 1980s picture discs.

Is there any support for this approach?

MegdalePlace (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)