Talk:The Beatles discography/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Box Of Vision

Is this an official Apple/Beatles release? Box Of Vision Does it have a place here? Should it have its own article or is it strictly ephemeral? googuse (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's strictly ephemeral as it is strictly packaging for Beatle albums and does not contain any recordings. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Track Listings

This was a better, more useful article with the track listings. Such a large removal should have been discussed. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the Beatles discography was a lot better with the track listings left in. They're really informative, and the way they were arranged, the discography as a whole was still easy to understand and navigate. There are some bands where I'd say the track listings should be left out of their discography, but the Beatles didn't put out a huge number of albums, and also all of their songs were notable enough to have their own articles. MOS:DISCOG says to leave them out, but that's not a policy, it's a style guideline, and only a proposed one at that. For the reasons I've mentioned, I'm in favor of restoring the track listings. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I restored them. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tracklistings are unnecessary for discography articles. See any Featured List discography article. This entire article is a bit of a mess, to be honest. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Featured articles are examples, but they aren't exhaustive, and tastes change in that area. My opinion above stands, so I won't repeat it. Can we please leave this in until more editors chime in? If the consensus is to keep it, it will be hard to recreate if there are any intervening edits, which I suspect are likely. (As you say, the article needs help in other areas.) — John Cardinal (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What should not be included: "Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release. Remember, this is a discography not a songography, so we're mostly concerned with the release, not every song on that release.". WesleyDodds (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the early Beatle albums had variations between different countries, the track listings are essential to determine the differences between, for example, the British and American versions of the "Rubber Soul" album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An easier solution that would take less space would be to list the catalogue numbers. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So, readers should copy those catalogue numbers, do a google search, and find that info elsewhere? We running out of space here? Guidelines are only just that. Common sense exceptions are allowed and I think in the case of bands with significant discographies, track listings are not only useful, but also, dare I say it, encyclopedic. freshacconci talktalk 11:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No, readers need to just click on the album's link. indopug (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Should this discography article include track listings for Beatle albums?

Support

1. Because of the variations around the world concerning early Beatle albums Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

   Plenty of albums through the years have been released with different track-listings and "bonus tracks" in different parts of the world. A paragraph at the beginning of the US studio albums sub-section explaining that the track-listings were altered and why, would serve this article better. indopug (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

2. The article is better with the track listings. There are a limited number of albums, and most or all of the songs are notable. The track listings also help explain the differences between the U.K. and U.S. releases. They don't make the article harder to understand or navigate. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

   Listing tracklistings in this article would be redundant to the albums' articles themselves. indopug (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Agree with Steelbeard1. I don't like the idea of blindly following guidelines so closely that the very idea of a paperless encyclopedia gets lost: information. I think we can find a balance between useful information (such as track listings) and endless trivia (cover versions, Beatle references in Spongebob Squarepants). freshacconci talktalk 11:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

   The point of the "Wikipedia is not paper" philosophy is that there need never be a limit to the number of articles Wikipedia can have, not that an article can be extremely long. In fact, longer articles are often encouraged to break off into smaller ones to enhance readability.

   And the discography guidelines are there for a reason; after a long process of debate and discussion, it was determined that MOS:DISCOG was the very best way to represent a discography. indopug (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Support; guideline gives terse non-reason for not including the track lists. The article is better with them. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   How is it better? They make the article unnecessarily long and detailed, not to mention unsightly. Compare this discography to The Cure discography, Metallica discography, Pearl Jam discography, or any other high-quality discog article. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   It's better because it's more useful. The individual album articles don't show the big picture of how Beatle releases varied across the two main streams (UK and US), how Capitol milked the 14 songs (UK) vs 12 songs (US) to create more albums, how the influence of United Artists affected releases in the US, etc.

   That can be dealt with in the lead of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   I don't see how any of this info is conveyed right now by having the tracklists there, John Cardinal. I highly doubt an unfamiliar reader can look at slightly different tracklists and realise that there is any significance to it. We could instead remove the tracklists, and have a paragraph or two at the start of the "US only" section that explains all this. indopug (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

   The FA point is circular; the guidelines recommend no tracklists, so none of the FA articles will have them. That doesn't mean they are better necessarily. Also, as far as I know, the artists you listed were not subject to the same issues as I described above. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   The Cure had an album that consisted of album and singles material repackaged for the American market. Neither of them have their tracklists noted. And yes, the FL point is very valid, because those article undergo far more scrutiny and are held to a much higher quality standard than this page has ever experienced. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)The

5. Support. The Beatles discog is of greater importance than typical. Their album tracks were frequently famous "hits" in their own right, although not released on 45. There are no comparable acts in this respect. Examples include "Yesterday", the most covered song ever, and not even a UK single. Many album tracks were number 1 when covered by others, "Michelle", "With A Little Help", "Ob-La-Di" and several others. So, yes. In this case, a listing is most useful.
6. Strong Support! And, also include info about Released/Recorded dates, Labels, Formats, Writers, Producers, Personnel, Reissues, etcetera. It will help readers to find what they are looking for without having to leave the page or the website. I think it will be a great improvement. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Listing tracklistings is unnecessary and cumbersome. It's not the job of a discography to list variations in tracklists; that's the job of the individual album articles. A discography article gives an overview of an artists' catalogue, not the contents of each catalogue item. This is the only discography page I've seen so far without tracklists, and it's very telling that any Featured List discog I can pull up doesn't have them. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Per my replies above. indopug (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
3. A discography should be for listing the artist's releases. The actual tracklistings belong on the releases article. It makes no sense to me to repeat so much information which is already available on Wikipedia. --JD554 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Per MOS:DISCOG. The tracklist(s) belongs in the album article. Repeating it/them in the discography does not bring any extra value to the article. It just increases the possibility of discrepancies, thus errors. – IbLeo (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Taken from MOS:DISCOG: What should not be included? "Tracklistings, B-sides, or any other description of the tracks on a release. Remember, this is a discography not a songography, so we're mostly concerned with the release, not every song on that release." Cannibaloki 03:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

We can read the original page, so there's no need to quote it here. It's been mentioned above, but I'll repeat: they're guidelines and not rules. Is the article more useful with the track listings, or not? I think it is, and I don't need a guideline to make up my mind for me. — John Cardinal (talk) 06:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

The way I envision this article, we should have all their studio albums together in one big section, with sub-sections for the "official canon", the "US studio albums" etc (similarly for singles and compilations). Then at the beginning of every sub-section we could have a note explaining that the track-listings were altered, and better still, why so (inclusion of singles, more upbeat songs, reduce number of songs from the British standard 14 to US standard 12).

Further, including track-listings makes it largely incompatible with a table format, meaning that detailed chart positions info, sales, certifications—info vital to a discography—cannot easily be conveyed. indopug (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete the material being discussed pending outcome of the straw poll. I've already contacted an administrator concerning the editing dispute. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"User talk:Indopug seems to think he owns The Beatles discography article..." - one would think you would be capable of civility and decency. Guess not. indopug (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles policy. Also, the above is not supposed to be publicly posted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indopug, please don't delete stuff pending the outcome of polls, OK? Steelbeard1, don't use the fact that you asked me to look at something as a club against others (or if that wasn't your intent, which I assume, don't give that appearance): "I've already contacted an administrator concerning the editing dispute" is just not really quite the way to word things... if you must say anything just say you asked for another opinion, because that I'm an admin is not all that relevant, is it? And both of you please be excellent to each other and don't edit war, OK? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The poll has been active for five days or so and there is no strong consensus for keeping the track listings. (It seems to be about a dead heat.) Given the guideline says they should not be included, I think the supporters, which includes me, should yield and agree to the removal. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Table-ise the article

Hi, I want to make the discography into a table format as prescribed by the MOS:DISCOG and followed the Featured lists such as The Cure discography. Since there is currently debate regarding the tracklists, I'll keep these in a columns. By table-ising we can drastically cut the redundancy in the article by bringing all the sales/certification info (which has its own section currently) elegantly into the same table. (like say Nirvana discography)

If nobody has any issues with this, I'm going to start with the official studio albums over the next week, using The Complete Beatles Chronicle (by Mark Lewisohn) for reference. Comments? indopug (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the article again a few minutes ago and rueing how much of a mess it is, so I am in favor of that. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I missed most of the above discussion/debate, but I'm certainly all for it. Drewcifer (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Seriously. The format is terrible. Make it like all other bands so i can look at sales much more easily

What about using this format??? Additional info has been collected in a collapsed invisible table, so it looks like a FL-Class Discography article, but you may get more information about a recording simply by clicking the "show" link in the "Additional info" hidden table for that recording, and all without having to leave the page or, even worse, the website!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-canon confusion

It seems people are looking at the official canon lists, noticing things missing (ie non-canon) and adding them without realising there is a seperate section. This is particularly true in the compilation and EP lists. Might I suggest when this is corrected (and if the splitting of official/non-canon remains... there is a lot of debate here!), a note is left in the code at the top of each list to warn off people adding non-canon releases back in the official lists? Retro junkie (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the canon list to delete the redundant non-canon entries and add The Beatles Box Set which got somehow omitted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Very confusing

Maybe it's better to separate information about vynil and cd edition.

Actually I was looking for information about CD Singles Collection and E.P. Collection, but there's nothing helpful here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.46.246 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Look under the British singles and British EP listings (non-canon). Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Chart Positions

Two points.

One: there is no discussion that I can find about which charts the differing albums are ranked on. My guess is that the UK albums are ranked on some form of UK chart, whereas the US albums are ranked on some form of US chart, but there is not any details as to which charts we are describing.

Two: on the US charts, if the album got to #1 it is bolded. Not so on the UK charts. Some consistency is required. I am riding no horse on this on - it can go either way.--Fizbin (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CHART, "(...) no peak positions should be boldfaced, as this violates Wikipedia's policy regarding neutral point of view and breaches WP:MOSBOLD." That should settle your second point. – IbLeo (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Including 'The Beatles', aka 'White Album'"

Why does the intro currently say this? "The Beatles released twelve original studio albums (including "The Beatles", aka "White Album")." You could also say "Including Please Please Me" or "Rubber Soul." Twelve studio albums is twelve studio albums. I suppose someone felt like specifying this because The Beatles/White Album was their only double album, which would make it 13 pieces of vinyl, but still only 12 studio albums. The sentence is confusing the way it reads. It almost sounds like there are only 11 albums unless you count "The Beatles" twice--which is wrong. There is no need for specifying The Beatles/White Album. I'm removing the parenthetical--someone correct me if I am missing something. Thanks. Judicata (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Fizbin (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

UK discography

I have never been happy with this page, and have given the problem a great deal of thought. I have a proposal here for re-organising. I like the distinction between 'canon' and 'non-canon', but I feel the lines are drawn in the wrong place. This is my proposal, and I'm happy to do the work if there is support for this.

1. Canon releases

I propose that 'canon' includes the EMI/Apple albums Please Please Me to Let it Be, and only those. Likewise singles, Love Me Do to Let It Be - period. Everything else is non-canon. (Free as a Bird and Real Love are arguable - no fixed opinion for me.) EPs, more obvious and the same principle applies - Twist & Shout to MMT.

So that's the canon as we all know and love it. Now comes the rest, and these fall into two distinct categories.

2. Non-canon releases

This should include all the recordings by the group which lie outside of the above canon. Not compilations, but actual recorded material which is additional to the above. So, for example the non-canon releases include "Live at the Star Club", "Complete Silver Beatles", the Christmas flexis and LP, "Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl", the Anthologies, "Let It Be... Naked".

NB - we have now covered all the official (ie legal) output of the band in the UK.

3. Retrospectives and compilations

This final section includes all comp LPs, regardless of the perceived level of insider approval, so it will include "Oldies But Goldies", "Hey Jude", "1962-66", "Love Songs", "Yellow Sub Songtrack", "1", and so on. Also the re-issue box sets, re-issue 45s and picture discs and the like. Anything which, by putting needle to vinyl results in re-hearing stuff from the Canon. (Let's not be pedantic and concern ourselves with alternative mixes and the like!)

What do people think? I think it would greatly improve what is, at present, a fairly incomprehensible listing.

MegdalePlace (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well for starters, the discography should not be separated into national releases - it should cover all releases in all regions, then we show the exceptions if we must. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying. Do you mean all releases around the world should be listed together? I don't think there's be much support for that, and I wouldn't agree. 217.43.165.196 (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read MOS:DISCOG and view some of the featured discographies. At times, yes, there is acceptions to the WP guidelines, but even The Beatles have absolutely no justification for only being covered in the UK and US. If this list wasn't so long, I'm sure it would have been fixed up at some point, but not to be. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but I'm not clear on what you are proposing. Surely a world-wide discography is, if not actually impossible, then at least impractical. Virtually all territories issued their own albums and singles, so the list of exceptions would be many times the basic list.

My opinion (just mine - not consensus!) is that this discog should be confined to the UK release which the group personally organised in terms of devising running orders for LPs, custom-writing UK 45s, desiging cover art for the UK releases and so on. However I think there is a case for including the US releases too (separately, as now) as 1. the US is the biggest market for records in the world, and 2. As such, the phenomenal success of the Beatles in America justifies the listing - truly massive sales for the US discog which sets it apart from pretty much any other act in history. (I don't have figures but maybe Elvis is the sole act to outsell The Beatles in the US?)

Canada - I don't think there is justification for including this and not Japan, Germany, Australia etc.

But my main point is about the UK section. I think it needs reorganising along the lines I suggested. Anyone agree/disagree? MegdalePlace (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't even bother getting into the sales figures, absolute nightmare! Have a squizz at the epic discussions we've recently had about Elvis, MJ and The Beatles' sales. Deplorably long.

You do have an argument, I'll give you that. There should obviously be due weight on the side of the major regions, however, the list currently does portray systemic bias, we even have an entire Wikiproject dedicated to countering this very thing. This, along with every other discography, should be sticking to the guidelines as much as possible. As it currently is, it should probably be in the back of a book going by the title of The Complete Guide with Every Detail of The Beatles in the UK and US, which is not what we're after here on Wikipedia. Just simple things like track listings make it just way too extended and wastefully long. There is a reason why it's never been fixed accordingly with WP's guidelines (considering their popularity, it's still a surprise), and it is the length. I'm not saying we should split it up listing every release for every country, but did they not release the 12 same studio albums in every country in the world? Why can we not make this clear? Why does it just have to be the 2 most "important" countries? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly correct about systemic bias, and I'm not going to disagree with you. However there are two points worth considering. 1. Every encyclopedia and historical publication has a level of systemic bias. It is quite unavoidable. and 2. The Beatles were British and had personal input into the design of the UK discography, so I think there is an objective justification for prioritising it. As regards the US, the discography there is again objectively far more important than the rest of the world (and no the same 12 albums weren't released all over. The US designed their own LPs until 1967. One, Yesterday & Today, is more noteworthy than any other non-UK album I can think of.)

Regarding track listings, I actually voted in favour of including them when a straw pole was conducted. I think it is important to itemise them - take "Yesterday" as an example. The most recorded song ever, and it wasn't a single. (Although Capitol lifted it in America.) Another example - check the new promo ads for the remastered CDs. The first 4 or 5 song clips included are all album cuts, not singles. So, the tracks are inportant enough in my view to be itemised in this way.

To be honest though, this wasn't the purpose of this suggestion - my point was that the UK releases have been divided up in a less than optimum way. I'd like to see the UK listing split into (broadly speaking) the 1962-70 EMI catalogue and everything else. At present the concept of 'Cannon' releases puts after-the-event compliations alongside studio albums, which I think is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.165.196 (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-structure

Well, in the absence of any debate or objections, I have gone ahead and separated out the compilations/re-issues from the UK discography. I hope all agree this is much more logical than the previous version. If anyone disagrees, please could we discuss. Cheers. MegdalePlace (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

International discography

Any objections to separating out the international discographies into it's own article? That would 1) make this article shorter and less confusing; 2) remove the primacy of the US and Canada over other countries, and 3) promote the addition of other international discographies if so desired. The Beatles international discography. VillageGreen1215 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We've had this discussion in the past. Consensus is for the' entire discography to show in one place, and one pace only. Less confusion, with a completely intact discography. --Discographer (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but how does one define 'entire'? The article as it stands is not 'completely intact', nor could it ever be, unless every release in every country over all time was included here. There's a point in which too much information becomes unhelpful to the typical user. I think most people that look up this article want to know the catalogue of Beatles recordings as John, Paul, George, and Ringo collectively intended as a creative unit, not every international variation of every release. VillageGreen1215 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You're absoulutely correct. That's why we don't need no international discography page, because that wull itself have to be split into two (US and CAN), and this article will have to be re-titled The Beatles British discography. Who wants that? Not me. So, it will stay as it is. Arbitrary commitee has been informed on this. So if you take matters into your own hands, opposing consessus, you definteately won't like the outcome. --Discographer (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "Who wants that? Not me. So, it will stay as it is."

Meet Discographer - a one-man police state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.165.196 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, any objections to combining all of the countries together? So that there is one albums section, one singles section, etc? VillageGreen1215 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the way it should be per MOS:DISCOG and all featured discogs. Read my posts two sections above on the matter. It currently does have way too much weight resting on three countries. I'm happy to help you with the changes if you are intending on doing it periodically, it'll be a biiiig change!

Ps. Redirect that international page, if anything the British page should be the spin-off (We would need overwhelming consensus prior to this), International trumps over one country. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should have one page.

Any big re-org should be discussed here. There is a clear difference between the Beatles-endorsed UK releases and releases in other countries and if the re-org obscures that issue, it's a bad re-org.

More controversially, perhaps, I think the UK and US markets are special: the UK is the Beatles' home market and they had the most control over the releases there, while the US was the largest market for their music and owing to that large market, Capitol had the power within EMI to make their own decisions. A re-org that doesn't acknowledge the importance of the UK and US markets will be a worse article than one that does.

John Cardinal (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I myself am a massive Beatles fan (aren't we all?), admittedly though, I have no idea about the differences between their catalogs in each country. Perhaps someone more knowledgable on the topic should draw up a simplified outline on a user subpage, we'll measure the size of the difference and thus the work that needs to be done, then we can go from there. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Could it be as simple as an album chart, with columns indicating the home country of said release (along with other relevant info)? So, Please Please Me would be ticked in the UK column, Meet the Beatles! would be US, Twist and Shout would be Canadian, etc? VillageGreen1215 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. A lot of these ideas you all have sound very good. We should try this, however it must be only on one article page. We probably can make this work and make it look a lot better than what it already does. Concerning what should be "canon" and not, I agree with what was said above about the 12 original UK albums, though we would now have to include Magical Mystery Tour and Past Masters for the sake of completeness of the discography. Here, for example, including all the album tracks also, maybe something like this:

Official canon

• Please Please Me (1963)
• With The Beatles (1963)
• A Hard Day's Night (1964)
• Beatles for Sale (1964)
• Help! (1965)
• Rubber Soul (1965)
• Revolver (1966)
• Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967)
• Magical Mystery Tour (1967) (non-original UK release)
• The Beatles (1968
• Yellow Submarine (1969)
• Abbey Road (1969)
• Let It Be (1970)
• Past Masters (1962-1970) (non-original UK release)

Also, I have a Sandbox page you're all welcome to look at so maybe as an example or something to see how the singles could be listed with the countries along the side. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Perhaps a good starting point would be a listing of reliable source material? What are the most reliable and accurate sources of information regarding the Beatles discographies? VillageGreen1215 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For the period of 1962 to 1970, Lewisohn provides the UK "canon" releases and the US releases. As he describes, his discography is not exhaustive, especially for the US where he omits the interview record releases, etc. He briefly describes the 1987 CD releases, but nothing after that. That source is the closest thing I know of to an "official" discography. See: Lewisohn, Mark (1988). The Beatles Recording Sessions. pp. 200–201.

There are many discography books, and the ones intended for collectors go into excruciating detail. I think we can skip most of that detail here, though (unfortunately) we do need to cover the abominable compilations released in the '70s, and we obviously need a source for Yellow Submarine Songtrack, Let It Be... Naked, etc.

I don't think sources will be the problem. The main issues are what level of detail to cover (i.e., the UK canon vs. the US releases vs. the rest of the world) and the organization of it. — 19:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The set-up we already have for the UK albums should be table-ised into a class-wikitable box, with all the tracks showing in that box also. This can be done, and really, it won't look too much different than it already does. The only thing different we might add to that if agreeable would be Magical Mystery Tour and Past Masters, which we can add a note of sort to them, explaining their inclusuion as being for discographical completeness, as some singles appear only on those two CD-albums and no place else.

Also, for the singles themselves, they all should be under one listing, but with UK, US and CAN showing in the wikitable box alongside Peak chart position, etc. --Discographer (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Discographia

Hey Check the spanish version of this article is better. I think that we have to make it like the spanish version Mike-hilal (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Mike, I've checked out the Spanish version and you are right! Paso has done an amazing job on this, in fact, this is one of the best discographies I've ever seen! So, I left him a message in asking for assistance (or, if he wants to, he can do it all and we'll Anglocise it over his Spanish). I don't know if he knows English, so my message to him might not be comprehendable. Thanks for that info. Best, --Discographer (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hello, Goodbye"

There's no comma in the song's title. Best, --Discographer (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I take this back... disregard the above line, please. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Article layout

hey guys, was randomly browsing and came across this article talk page and there are alot of conflicting views here.

• the tracklistings for the albums should be removed asap. they belong in the albums own article and are not notable for a discography.
• the article only includes (unsourced!) chart date for the uk, us and canada. it should include sourced chart info for other countries also.
• the albums, ep's, compilations etc should be put into tables. just like every single other discography.

they're my own personal quibbles about the article. what does anyone else think? Mister sparky (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing incorrect you've said. We (or, at least, I am) are working on this at the moment. Please give a little time. Best, --Discographer (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The layout/structure is the issue, as discussed above there is problems with the discrepancies and differences between their discography in each country. One of these days we'll get it all fixed up, one of these days! k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs)

I agree. While I appreciate thata lot of work goes into articles, this one is unnecessarily messy!

U.S. -> US

MoS says, "In American English, U.S. (with periods) is the standard abbreviation for United States; US (without periods) is the standard abbreviation in other national forms of English." Accordingly, The Beatles has been updated to use "US" throughout. I know there's an ongoing discussion about restructuring the discography so I judged it an inappropriate moment for me to go through and make the change here; I suggest any rework should incorporate this change and the link from The Beatles to The Beatles discography#U.S. singles be updated at that point. PL290 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)