Talk:The Beatles discography/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Mono Masters

This is shown in the tableas if it was an independent release, but it wasn't, was it? It's just a component of the mono box set. Spark240 (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the Mono Masters were not released independently. Also, Past Masters is listed, but it's a re-release and the page doesn't include the re-releases of all the other albums. I think both should be removed. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Compilations" vs. albums

I don't understand the rationale being used to distinguish these. The article for Yesterday and Today, for example, describes it as being "compiled from" tracks on other (now-"canonical") albums, but it's still a "studio album" here. Meanwhile, Let It Be Naked and Love, which are indisputably distinct mixes from anything previously released, are called "compilations." To me those seem much more like new, independent studio albums than the various releases which simply reshuffle otherwise-available tracks. Spark240 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

In general, the US releases introduce confusion. Most of the songs on Yesterday and Today had not been released on albums in the US and so it was a new studio album and not a compilation from the point of view of that market. That's true of many US releases. Let It Be... Naked and Love contain remixes of previously released songs, and while one might argue that the remixes constitute new material, I think the convention is to treat them as compilations. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Why not separate the UK and US albums? that would solve the issue. Also I think Remixes should be considered separate, as with different versions on BBC and Anthology. CentraCross (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...the 'compilation album' designation of the 'Anthology' albums, 'Yellow Submarine Soundtrack', 'Let It Be...Naked', 'Love' is problematic and for differing reasons and I'm not sure that John's 'I think the convention is to treat them as compilations.' is quite satisfactory (not that he is wrong in asserting this). The content of the 'Anthology' albums and other artists' 'outtake' albums, is particularly inadequately served by the term 'compilation' album, as there is no basis for saying, for example, that the tracks showing the development of 'Strawberry Fields' are a compilation of previously issued or remixed material, (even where we might accept 'remixed material' as 'previously issued', which itself is dubious). It seems that we are poorly served by categories in this area which might reflect these and other distinctions. This *might* be an opportunity for innovation, although I balk at the implications of making new categories which might have to ripple across current and historical usage. Nevertheless: I note that Wikipedia's own article on 'Compilation album' refers to the term 'retrospective album' thusly (albeit without citation of where this term has previously been deployed): 'When the tracks are all essentially by the same recording artist, a compilation album is often referred to as a retrospective album.'

This might be useful, pending further research as to a supposed convention on the use of this term.

In the absence of some agreement, I would have to state that I find the inclusion of the above-named Beatles albums within the category of 'Compilation Albums' inadequate, misleading and inappropriate.

We might usefully progress by considering 'Compilation Album' literally as a 'collection of previously-released items' where 'items' implies 'identical to in all respects'. Albums which exclusively and intentfully feature 'alternate versions', released for the first time, whether outtakes or remixes, should be designated separately and, in the case of The Beatles' discography, I feel it is safer to treat these as canonical items, albeit 'Post-Breakup'. This is entirely appropriate since the albums we are talking about have followed a reunion of band-members within their organisation, Apple, as well as involvement in and approval of the product-development and release.

I feel strongly this topic needs to be discussed fully and it would be interesting to try to get Apple's own view on the matter.

Michaelk xsx (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

=why are the American albums from the 60's listed as part of the Beatles "Studio Albums"? The American albums are compilations. They are NOT studio albums and nor were they ever authorized buy The Beatles. It is totally confusing and unnecessary to list them this way. I realise that America is a major market, but these are not proper albums by any means and they do not belong on this list. There are other Beatles albums from foreign countries with unique titles and track lists but they are not included here so WHY is the American catalog? Please make a separate category for American albums or international releases. The Beatles canon of Studio albums should be separate.

New Beatles discography

An updated and improved discography on The Beatles is about (very nearly) complete. This new discography (click here) is a "complete discography", not one just based solely on popularity of hit albums and singles as other discographies list. So, in by being "complete", all B-sides are shown with their respective A-sides; all track listings are shown (only) for the core albums. This is not just for charted albums and singles, but all albums and singles. Many editors will oppose this, as expected, though instead of following a standard here, it is the hope that a new one is being set. A new change also is the colorised tables, to coincide with the colors of the infobox; unlike the old-fashioned black and white ones. Music videos are listed, along with video albums. It is not expected that everyone will like this, unfortunately, though at the same time, many will. I hope you all like it as much as I do. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to personally thank John Cardinal and Steelbeard 1 for your help and support on this project. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. - that also goes for Indopug and JD554. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This wasn't quite ready to be implemented - there isn't a single source, not one. I don't think we should be ignoring all rules for the sole reason that it is 'The Beatles', that is what you have essentially done to include colours (Why?), multiple release dates and track listings (Why completely ignore MOS:DISCOG?). If you have any intention on taking this to WP:FLC, it's not going to come off well with all these remaining issues. Nevertheless, you've obviously put a lot of work in, and it's very informative, neater and comprehensive! :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Notes, references and external links will be returning. As for anything else, please read above. Also, MOS:DISCOG needs improved and updated too. Best, --Discographer (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course it does, but that's no reason to completely ignore it's existence - not the mention all the featured discographies which are correctly based off it. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"Also, MOS:DISCOG needs improved and updated too". They seem to operate quite well, given how many Featured Lists they turn out using those guidelines. They don't seem to be flawed at all. You can' just ignore them. If you have an issue with those guidelines, bring it up there. Nonetheless, you need concrete reasons to explain why you don't want to follow established guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the version prior to the massively overhauled one by User:Discographer. My main issue with the new one is that it is almost entirely unreferenced, and for some reason does not separate the band's release into canon/non-canon which I think it should in the case of The Beatles. Also, there are some inaccuracies: why is Let It Be… Naked listed as a studio album? Use of colour in this way is discouraged because of WP:ACCESS issues, namely it is very confusing for the similar reader, and of no use for a colour-blind person. indopug (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Click on MOS:DISCOG and scroll on down to the very bottom of the page and read what it says. Also, all discographies only have one infobox, not three; which goes againt guidelines, for those who follow them. With what I have in the new discography, I can put in Yellow Submarine Songtrack and Let It Be... Naked with the compilation albums, that's no problem. I also was still working on notes, references and external links, before it was reverted. Also, no other discographies have sections featuring (well, in this case, favouring) three countries, when it should be universal, as I had. What makes one not think that any release by Polydor Records is canon or non-canon? (Oh, I know what will be said: for it's not owned by EMI)! It does not matter. I have a core listing of the albums, which is true. That's the only thing canon which needs showing. Also, black-and-white and color tables are not going to matter to color-blind people, only traffic lights are. The colorised tables make it more simple to scroll on down to that point in the page and know exactly where you are at! With the old discography, one has to stop for a moment before they may realise that they're at UK compilation albums, not US ones. I was going to seek in-put help from others concerning the new discography, too. This old discography is so black-and-white and old-fashioned. Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the whole thing is black and white, why try make it look like a sub-par personal blog? The colours were superfluous.
I agree it should be universal, and not just cover a select couple of countries. As I stated in the discussion above.
I'm not understanding the importance of the canon/non-canon debacle, can someone please enlighten me? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Canon is important because The Beatles participated in the track selection and sequencing for the UK releases and not for the American releases (in particular) or other international releases. The UK releases represent the albums as The Beatles intended.
  • I think the colors help. As Discographer says, it's easy to get lost on the current version of the page. The same colors are used in infoboxes and in the box at the top of the page, both of which follow the guidelines. We can use color to add information that helps most readers as long as the colors don't prevent color-challenged readers or convey information solely through color.
  • I also prefer the track listings and have argued for them in the past. The guideline is just that, and it's not always right. The page that discusses this has a non-reason for not including track lists. Every good, published discography I've seen off-WP includes the tracks. Other editors here quote chapter and verse about this but their arguments are not convincing.
  • I'll do some work om sources for the new version. Note, however, that the present version is not particularly well-sourced and an entire section was deleted a few weeks ago because it was unsourced. No one jumped in to correct that when it happened.
Overall, I think we should be encouraging Discographer here and get his version back in so it can be improved. The present version is a mess and it needs work.
— John Cardinal (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
OK! Yes, I'm going to put it back in and we're going to begin working on it again. Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I think that Discographer should be commended for his effort. However, since his work is not yet complete (it is unreferenced for one), it is better to wait until the draft is finished before transferring to article space.
Also, as pointed out, we need to have the Fabs' releases sorted by canon/non-canon basis. Apart from what John Cardinal pointed out, fact is most professional Beatles discographies (such as the one in Lewisohn) divide their catalogue by UK/US/Canada, so it's essential that we do the same. I am not very particular about the use of colour, but I do remember a discussion for a discography at FLC that required colour to be removed. Fact is, colour removes the sober, professional and elegant appearance from the encyclopedia article. ("The colorised tables make it more simple to scroll on down to that point in the page and know exactly where you are at!"—I don't understand; wouldn't the big section header before a table begins tell them where they are? Isn't that easier for a reader to remember than a colour code?)
John Cardinal, as for the tracklists: [1]. indopug (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Keeping the new version in user space reduces the chances that other editors will contribute. Personally, I'm not willing to spend a lot of time adding sources to a version of the article that may never see the light of day.
Regarding your opinion about sorting the releases, it's not clear that your opinion on this is the consensus. Discographer's version starts with the canon releases, and I presume you are OK with that. Other editors have suggested that we pool the releases in one big table so as not to give undue preference to releases for the US or any other country besides the UK. A canon list followed by a combined list makes a lot of sense. I'd add a "country" column to Discographers combined table.
I don't agree that using color negatively affects the sober, professional, or elegant appearance of the page. Also, the current page doesn't use color and it has none of those attributes. I wouldn't fight hard to retain color, but I find it frustrating that solid information design principles (such as endorsed by Tufte) are dismissed by this community for no solid reason. Using multiple signals--section headers and color--can definitely help people recognize where they are in a long article. Some people will ignore the color, others will ignore the section headings. At very least, different colors signal the end of one section and the start of another when scrolling rapidly down the page.
I am aware of my past comments on track lists. I didn't say that they absolutely have to be in the article; I said I prefer them. The editors who participated in the last go-round may have changed their minds, or new editors may sway the decision.
Lastly, your comments above about what the article needs (expressed as a requirement as opposed to a personal preference), your rapid reverts, and your user space comments about the sorry state of Beatle-related articles—immediately after your first revert here—make me wonder if you are participating in good-faith here. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason not to assume good faith with Indopug. I've worked with him a lot and he knows his way around discography pages. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm becoming less and less enamoured with the canon/non-canon layout. I don't think it's very helpful to the general reader. It might be best to just lay everything out, dividing by country if need be. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the canon issue is important to a large subset of readers, but I'd be willing to consider solutions that don't include a separate list of them. A single, integrated list of studio albums might work if the canon albums among them were identified clearly. If we had a "country" column, for example, the UK entries could be highlighted beyond just containing "UK". I think that would reduce clutter. It would hide the canon albums a bit, but it would also put the canon albums in context, i.e., prior to Sgt. Pepper, you'd see approx. three US albums for every two UK albums. For the Vee-Jay complications (endless re-packaging of the same material), they should be treated as compilations or re-issues or whatever is the correct rule and everything other than "Introducing the Beatles" would not be in the "studio" list. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the canonical releases are the UK studio albums, I think the page's structure/layout in its current pre-Discographer-edit page is good enough (i.e. division of their releases by country). We just need to convert the lists into standard-format tables now, and add references. (FYI, the rule with reissues is that we don't list them at all.) indopug (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Except for Magical Mystery Tour since the American LP is considered canon. Deserted Cities (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The canon/non-canon issue could easily be summarised in the lead. --JD554 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see why we need to ellaborate the entire list to double the size just to honour what The Beatles supposedly endorsed. If we were to accept this, then I'm sure every single artist would have claims of a similar sort. Do we then separate Radiohead: The Best Of from the other compilation albums in Radiohead's discography? A band endorsing it's releases does not change the fact that they are their releases. And if anyone's intending on pulling the UK/US/Canada are more important card on me, it's a redundant argument and constitutes blatent systemic bias as discussed above. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Discographer has replaced the article with his draft again. A major problem with this draft is that it lists what happen to be canonical releases twice. (once in the core/canon albums section and once in the studio albums section) And I do not believe there is a consensus yet to use colourful tables... indopug (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A good compromise would be to remove the canon albums from the studio albums table and renaming that table "Non-canon studio albums." How's that idea? Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I can remove the canon albums from the studio albums table, though I'm going to leave the title as is. Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
How about instead removing canonical albums section completely, and leaving the studio albums as is, with the works of canon marked as such?
Also, Early Beatles, Yesterday and Today, and Hey Jude (possibly others) are compilations which you list as studio albums. Could you move these, as well as check if any of the other studio albums are actually compilations? indopug (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Indopug, I will move those studio albums to compilation section.

Steelbeard, I'm unable to do that, as I have the US album information listed with the UK versions. Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Early Beatles can not be moved, as it is the fifth Capitol-released (studio) album, which would change the sequential count for Beatles VI, the sixth album. Yesterday and Today is shown as a studio album, per its article page. I'll have to leave that alone too (for now). Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Indopug, you wrote "How about instead removing canonical albums section completely, and leaving the studio albums as is, with the works of canon marked as such?" If you think that's a good idea, why did you disagree with me when I suggested it: "A single, integrated list of studio albums might work if the canon albums among them were identified clearly." — John Cardinal (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My first preference for organising is to divide the release by country. Since nobody else seems to be in favour of that, clubbing them all together is our best option I think. (it removes the "in-universe" element of some releases being considered canonical, while others aren't. Also, cuts redundancy.)
Is everybody in for removing the canon/core albums table then? indopug (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm in favour of that, we could use explanatory notes with {{Note}} and {{Note label}} to highlight which releases is considered canon. --JD554 (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
They (countries) already are clubbed together. It is now universal. Also, you mean removing the track listings, don't you? As for what is canon and not, maybe people have their own views on this. Some may say all-and-only Parlophone releases are, while others may contend that. If somebody can find an official source as to what the true canon releases are, then we can indicate these with a ♦ ticked next to the title. The only true canon albums we know as definitive (MMT becoming core in 1987 and PM last month) are what's shown in the core/canon albums section. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Indopug, thanks for clarifying. My persecution complex was kicking in.
I support removing the canon section if we mark the canon albums in the combined list.
Regarding the method to mark them, I'd prefer something more visual than the {{Note}} template provides. A thin column with an asterisk, for example, or maybe a different background color in the "country" column, something like that. The Note template produces a footnote ref (right?), and that won't stand-out from the citation footnotes. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I Support. You want to do the edit, John, hmm? Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. I used a † symbol to mark the canon releases. That may not be the best symbol, and people may not approve of the additional (thin) column. I also split albums that had the same name but different track listings (A Hard Day's Night, UK v. US, etc.) into two separate entries. They are different albums. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
John, that's really good! (Better than a diamond ticked by the title.) Let's celebrate! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a problem with the current listing, or should I state "listings" for the Magical Mystery Tour album which have the US and UK releases given separate listings even though it is the same album. It was originally issued by Capitol in the US in 1967, but was heavily imported in the UK selling enough copies reach #31 in the UK. Continued sales of this album as an American import led to Parlophone releasing it in the UK in 1976. The two listings should be consolidated of course, but with a footnote stating that the album was #31 in the UK as an American import. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You want to edit that for us, Steelbeard, please? Thanks. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hold on. I don't agree that the two listing should be consolidated. One release was an EP, the other release was an LP. That's two different releases. We should update the chart entries to reflect that the imported US LP charted in the UK, and make the EP chart listings reflect whatever it did in the charts. Did the MMT EP chart in the UK? — John Cardinal (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Hold on times two. (<g>) The MMT UK entry should be removed; it's an EP and there is already an entry for it in the EP list. I'll remove it. Objections? —
Sorry for being such a dope. I assumed the UK MMT entry was the EP, but it was the 1976 LP release. I've now merged the two entries as Steelbeard1 suggested originally. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
And we're done... --Discographer (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
... on that part. I promised to add some sources and I will do that shortly. I'd welcome some help from other editors as I don't have great sources for chart info, especially for non-UK, non-US results. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I know someone we can ask...Paso del lobo! Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Colours

I must say this is really, really excellent. However, while I will warm to the coloured tables, I think the alternate-coloured tables from Singles downwards don't look very good. Why not colour them the same way you have the Studio albums/EPs/Compilations? indopug (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not particularly fond of the striped tables. Rather than use the "studio" color, however, how about just making them not striped? Use the color shown in the infobox, possibly with a slightly darker color for the first column to mimic the tables above. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Re-reading Indopug's comment, I think I misunderstood it and we are both saying the same thing. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This looks good, ok. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for this to have colours. It's superfluous, pointless and a distracting. The disography is no different to any other, no longer, no harder to understand, the colours just detract from what would be a great uninterrupted read. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If all these editors who were involved in this project here want the colors out, then we will take them out. Best, --Discographer (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a Beatles discography issue though, it's a Wikipedia-wide issue. That is a massive style change and shouldn't just be applied because a couple of editors with a specific invested interest in a page want it that way. I agree if consensus is just, but this is simply not an issue where if 3 or 4 people want it, it should be done. The page will be copied and copied, being the Beatles, people will use it as a reference point, use it to template their own discography... you can't just go against all style guidelines to tender a trivial issue of being able to tell massive sections apart. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 10:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the colours work well. They certainly do help a reader to understand which part of the discography they are reading as they follow the colour system already employed in album infoboxes and in the discography infobox (which also acts as a key to the colours themselves). The only guidelines which may scupper the use of colours would be Wikipedia:Accessibility, but as the colours arent' essential to understanding the list, it passes that as well. Almost all lists that go through FLC seem to use colour in some way or another, so I can see no reason why discographies need to be different. Besides, the main page itself uses a similar colour scheme. --JD554 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I also think the colors work well. On a long page, with multiple long-ish tables, it's not a trivial issue to indicate which section of the page is visible. Regarding guidelines and policies, I agree with JD554. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay. So you are telling me the colours are simply because of the long page and understanding which part of the discog they are reading. So, when everyone copies the Beatles discog and turns all discographies into rainbows, are you okay with that? Or just the long ones? Surely it would end up being all discographies, controlling it would be unattainable. And it would all happen because this one discography was too long? I understand your reasoning, and accept it, but as I said, this is bigger than the one article... do we really need people trying to add pinks and purples to 3-album discographies? Or do you expect people to follow a guideline that's added to MOS:DISCOG saying "only special cases like The Beatles discography"? We've already seen that editors are quite fine with ignoring that page altogether, so what I'm getting at is, this could very well change all discographies, why are we allowing it because of a 3 person discussion? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Because it makes sense for this article as explained and it is the (current) consensus for this article. If it gets copied on to other discographies, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing as the majority of discography articles have tables that are more than one screen in depth, but it would need to be justified. I guess the crunch will come when the first one goes through FLC. --JD554 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with JD554. What's the problem if the colors are copied to other discographies? We use color to indicate album types in infoboxes. The color doesn't convey information that is not conveyed some other way. The color is not gratuitous; it reinforces the type of albums in a list. Color is a legitimate presentation device endorsed by people like Tufte and we are using it in a responsible way. If other discographies follow this article's example, fine with me. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
k.i.a.c, The Beatles happened to be very colorful, especially around 1967, when watching rainbows were actually an important part of their life. Why, taking that away from them, would be taking away Sgt. Pepper..., Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine, and anything else colorful they gave us — like this very discography! Best,--Discographer (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Too much LSD duuude! :p Okay I will sit on this since you guys seem happy. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Too much Lucy... mine are prescription! Best, --Discographer (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda neutral on this, but want to point out that this actually came up once at FLC: here. You might want to skip down to Grim's comments about using coloured tables. (also, fun fact: this discography was the first one to use Template:Infobox Artist Discography, now a standard feature in all high-quality discographies.) indopug (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I read Grim's comments and I find them (at best) uninformed. For example, "Either the colors serve an absolute purpose in the article—in which case it would be an accessibility issue; or they basically do nothing more than serve as a 'dress-up'—in which case it'd be the visual equivalent to a "peacock term'." That's a false duality; those aren't the only two choices. If it were true, then WikiPedia would have to be black and white, the main page would be in violation of accessibility guidelines and so would the navbox templates, infobox templates, etc. More importantly, every link in Wikipedia would have to change, too. I can hear it now: Blue links? That's just dress up!
I suspect we will face stiff opposition from editors with similar opinions, but that's fine. Color can be used to improve usability without violating accessibility guidelines. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's good! Nicely put, John! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of colors, for somebody whose sure against their use, why are the letters in Kiac's name colored green? Why? (Ha-ha!) Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh... the irony! k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, my friend, Cheers! Best, --Discographer (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

EPs chart

Hello,

I'm spaniard, so sorry for my english.

I see the Magical Mystery Tour EP is in wrong place in the EPs chart (and also the singles "Baby It's You", "Free as a Bird", and "Real Love", too). All Beatles' EPs are in the EPs chart, right; but historically, the Magical Mystery Tour EP didn't chart in that EPs chart, because at that time, EPs chart didn't exist anymore (the EPs chart was removed in 1967 - see here). So, the Magical Mystery Tour EP only charted in the singles chart. I say this, because that information can move to confusion to the readers.

"Baby It's You", "Free as a Bird", and "Real Love" are CDs singles, and thereby mustn't chart in this EPs list.

The right british list for EPs chart and the EPs in singles chart can you see in the spanish wikipedia (with references)

When I been in some mistake, please say it to me.

I hope I have explain myself. Thanks for the attention, and, again, sorry for my poor english. --Paso del lobo (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Paso. OK, I show those last four titles as EPs since they really are EPs, though you are correct in the positions as they are for the singles chart and not the EPs (which I also show). I will leave a note explaining this at the end of the table, since the (UK) EP chart did end back in 1967. I will add a note in. Also, My Bonnie is an EP, too, like it is an album and a single. Also-also, please tell Mike-hilal to stop messing with Paul McCartney discography, OK. Thanks Paso. Best, --Discographer (talk) 05:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. "Baby It's You", like "MMT", charted as an EP on the singles charts in some countries, and since it's an EP, did not chart on the singles charts in other countries as "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love" did (which were both released as singles and EPs). Best, --Discographer (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok Paso, you helped me out, now I help you out. Look at these three albums: Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962, (1977, Lingasong Records); First Live Recordings (1979, Pickwick Records); and Beatles Bop - Hamburg Days (2001, Bear Family Records). I bring this to you as to say that these releases, along with many others, are by either rogue record companies or a company (such as Pickwick) who happened to release a rogue recording (maybe not intentionally, though it just happened). This is the reason one will not find these albums in many discographies, including here. All the albums we have listed are non-rogue albums. Hope this helps you out! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're not doing anything, have a look at this discography now. Tell me what you think. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam links

Someone is inserting spam links to the external links section of The Beatles Stereo Box Set and The Beatles in Mono articles. Please monitor those articles to make sure spam external links do not reappear. I obviously cannot do it alone due to the 3RR rule. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that this article is getting the same spam link as well. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Singles release dates?

How about it? They seem to be there for LPs and EPs. Spark240 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If we did that, we would be listing multiple dates for many of the singles. That's why I left them out and only used years. I used dates for the albums and EPs because it could be done. Originally I tried putting dates in, as you said. This way we have it just with the years is good enough. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Paso del lobo

I would like to thank my Spaniard friend Paso del lobo as the inspiration of giving me the idea of colorising these tables for The Beatles discography in English Wikipedia. If only they awarded Original Barnstars in Spanish Wikipedia, which I don't think they do, then Paso would truly deserve one. Thank you very much my friend! Always, --Discographer (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Other canon material

Shouldn't we also indicate which singles and compilation albums belong to the official canon? VillageGreen1215 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. I don't recall ever reading that The Beatles objected to single releases by Capitol during 1964-1970. I know they did not approve of the single releases in the mid 70s, and the same thing for the compilations from around the same time. Personally, I don't think those releases caused as much harm as the album reformulations and so it is not an important issue for me. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
My main concern is that the average visitor to this page have a way to know which singles stand alongside the canon of albums as part of the Beatles official, original body of work. VillageGreen1215 (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
What source(s) do we have for what constitutes the canon of singles? — John Cardinal (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I marked Past Masters as Canon albums according to an agreement made on The Beatles Template, but the edits were reverted. CentraCross (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Daggers

I far prefer the daggers in a separate column. At the end of the album name, they get lost a bit, and they negatively affect the look of the name. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But we aren't saying the chart positions, certifications etc are canon, only the album, so that is where the mark should be. --JD554 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
That's over-analyzing. The explanation clearly says what the dagger represents. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why it's over-analysing. It's the same as where a reference should be placed, ie next to the information that needs the reference. --JD554 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
How about if they weren't emboldened? They wouldn't get lost or be, perhaps, mistakenly thought to be part of the title. Currently: Please Please Me† Could be: Please Please Me† --JD554 (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I won't rehash the canon discussions—which you can read above—but canon albums began as a separate table and a compromise was reached where we removed that table in favor of clearly marking the canon albums in an integrated table. The way they are shown now changes my position because the canon symbol is simply not prominent enough. We gone too far; from a over-prominent table to an under-prominent symbol. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you John on this and I will explain: With the location that JD placed that dagger makes it harder to see than when you had it at in its own column. Also, I could easliy give a count from 1 to 13 just by looking at that column. JD's dagger I have to kind of hunt for (and I have 20/20 vision). Sorry, JD, I think John's column should be what we use. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

←Well, obviously I will go along with the consensus, but I do feel that it makes a less cluttered table this way and means that the table layouts are consistent throughout. I would be interested in other editors' views so a more concrete consensus could be established. --JD554 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who is unsure you can see the difference in these two versions: Dagger in separate column and dagger not in separate column. --JD554 (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I implemented what I think is a compromise: no dagger column, but dagger now floats to the right of the album title box to make it more prominent. Reasonable? — John Cardinal (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks OK to me, good idea. --JD554 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Certification sources

How about removing the repeated cites for the certifications and instead add notes above or below the table such as "US certifications per Recording Industry Association of America[n]" where the "n" is replaced by the actual citation number? — John Cardinal (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the reference is meant to be where the information is that needs to be cited. This is the recommended method at MOS:DISCOG and with FL-Class Discography articles. --JD554 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
For chart results we put the citation in the header... I was suggesting something similar. Having entries in the Notes section that have dozens of back-links negatively affects that section. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The chart positions are clearly referencing one set of information (the chart positions for that country), but it doesn't work in every case even then, if you look at the David Bowie discography I previously mentioned, you'll notice that the Canadian RPM reference has to be used individually per chart entry. If you have a list of references at the top of the certifications column it would not be clear which country they were for, and there will be a few as I haven't yet added the Australian, Canadian, European, German, etc certifications. --JD554 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, JD, might you switch around CAN and AUS with each other for the compilation albums 1 and Love. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. You have GER and EUR switched. It should be GER then EUR (last). Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't yet finished adding certifications to the tables and I planned on sorting them when done. I agree that EUR should be last, but I believe the guidelines for the order of charts at MOS:DISCOG is that "the artist or band's home country comes first, followed by an English-language alphabetical ordering of countries (with the option to prioritize English-speaking countries before others), then followed by international, multinational, or worldwide charts if available". So the order of the peak chart positions are wrong in that they should either be "UK, AUS, CAN, US, AUT, GER, NOR, SWE, SWI, EUR" or "UK, AUS, AUT, CAN, GER, NOR, SWE, SWI, US, EUR". Another common method used is "UK, US, AUS, AUT, CAN, GER, NOR, SWE, SWI, EUR". I'm easy on whichever of these gets used, but each of them is better than the (seemingly) arbitrary order currently used. --JD554 (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, we'll change these countries around with there peak chart positions. I'd like an idea though as to which list we should use. Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Splitting up long table(s)

Splitting the long tables doesn't make them any shorter; it just introduces white space in the middle. That doesn't really help, I don't think, especially given the "Year" column that's on the left anyway. Also, screen readers and other browsers do a better job with tables when they are all one piece. I don't see any real bnefit to splitting up the longer tables. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes them easier to read on screen. It also adds another level to the contents which makes navigation easier. This was a method I used on the recently featured list promoted David Bowie discography and there were no concerns brought up during the FL discussion. --JD554 (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
How does it make it easier to read? It might make it easer to scan, but I think that's suspect. I won't revert if you put it back, but I wonder what other editors think. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel it makes it easier to read because it breaks up an otherwise very large block of information, in the same way that paragraphs that are overly long are better broken up. I'm also interested in other editors' views, so won't restore until we get some sort of consensus. --JD554 (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't split the compilation table up. Other than that, everything else is looking great! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it, this is how the compilation tables looked when they were split. --JD554 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My Bonnie

Can we add a footnote indicating that "My Bonnie"/"The Saints" is credited to Tony Sheridan and The Beat Brothers, rather than being a proper Beatles release? VillageGreen1215 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with listing the Rubber Soul / Revolver (etc) UK / US albums separately

is that it causes errors with regard to the RIAA certifications. For example, I see that the US edition of Revolver is certified 5x platinum in the States (ie, it shipped five million copies there). However, this is obviously not true: a significant number of the five million were sold after 1986/87, by which time the US Revolver wasn't even available any more. So, we are incorrectly attributing US sales of the official/canonical UK Revolver album to the US version. The only way to fix this is to list both versions together. (like you have for Pepper)

Of course the same logic applies to all US studio albums that share their name with their UK counterparts. (Rubber Soul, Help! etc) indopug (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, how about having the canoncial studio albums in a different colour to further highlight them? (they are the ones 90% of our readers will be looking for...) indopug (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I assume based on your comments that sales information is not available by version.
If we merge them, that merges the sales information which isn't completely accurate but is probably the best solution for that problem. On the other hand, it hides the differences between the releases. I'd prefer to treat them as distinct albums but I think your suggestion to merge is the best alternative.
Regarding the canon albums, what do you think of the right-adjusted dagger? — John Cardinal (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

←Ah, I'd not spotted that. So we don't lose information as John has mentioned, how about this format?

Year Album Peak chart positions Certifications
(sales thresholds)
UK
<ref name="hit_albums">{{cite book |title=The Virgin Book of British Hit Albums |editor=Roach, Martin |publisher=[[Virgin Books]] |location=London |year=2009 |page=48 |isbn=978-0-7535-1700-0}}</ref> 		US
<ref name="walgren">{{cite book |last=Wallgren |first=Mark |title=The Beatles on Record |year=1982 |publisher=[[Simon & Schuster]] |location=New York |isbn=0-671-45682-2}}</ref> 		CAN AUS GER NOR
1964
†
A Hard Day's Night[A] 		1 1 — 1 — —
  • CAN: Gold
  • US: 4× Platinum
  • A^ The US version of this release is not considered canon.

--JD554 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly put the table note after the dagger. --JD554 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

←How about this, where the note is after the label info:

Year Album Peak chart positions Certifications
(sales thresholds)
UK
<ref name="hit_albums">{{cite book |title=The Virgin Book of British Hit Albums |editor=Roach, Martin |publisher=[[Virgin Books]] |location=London |year=2009 |page=48 |isbn=978-0-7535-1700-0}}</ref> 		US
<ref name="walgren">{{cite book |last=Wallgren |first=Mark |title=The Beatles on Record |year=1982 |publisher=[[Simon & Schuster]] |location=New York |isbn=0-671-45682-2}}</ref> 		CAN AUS GER NOR
1964
†
A Hard Day's Night 		1 1 — 1 — —
  • CAN: Golg
  • US: 4× Platinum
  • B^ The US version of this release had different tracks than the UK version.

— John Cardinal (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have all albums which feature the same title listed with each other (UK, US, CAN) if the track listings are identical, whereas if they're not, then each album is listed separately, like A Hard Day's Night. I tried that idea originally when I was still developing this new discography. It is not a good idea. It's not. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. It's like listing two different albums in the same box. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain, but how do we reconcile the sales certifications? If EMI has essentially redefined the US release, or the line has been blurred by the RIAA, how do we cope with something that is both the same and different?
Also, the studio albums list in your sandbox has only one box for A Hard Day's Night, Help!, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
No, John...My sandbox shows two, you didn't look at the "core" albums, just the studio ones. Also, RIAA is US, so that's for the US version, BPI for the UK, CRIA for Canada. We absolutely cannot put same-titled albums with different track listings together. We just can't, John. You know that! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a separate "canon" table anymore, and the US albums wouldn't be there anyway, so I looked at your studio table.
The RIAA thing is what matters because it's the US version that confuses the issue.
While I'd rather not put the two entries together, I don't see a better alternative. What do you suggest we do about certifications? — John Cardinal (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
We can put RIAA info with its US release, instead of with the UK release, if they are two separate albums, and in that case, only the BPI info will be shown for that (UK) release. The Beatles have four studio albums with different track listings for the UK and the US. The last seven studio albums listed are no problem, it's just these four. Also, in the compilation section, you will see I have Rarities twice, that's because they have different track listings. 20 Greatest Hits is the only album shown once that has track listings different, and that's because it has track listings differnt on all its versions in every country! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. When we took the canon section out, we were left with no choice but to list A Hard Day's Night, Help, Rubber Soul and Revolver twice. That's why you didn't see it in my sandbox, as it still retains its original form. I haven't gone back to it yet and changed it (no reason to really). Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we could leave them separate and say that the RIAA certification lumps together sales of the original US version as well as the post-1987 album of the same name, so we do, too.
P.S. to your P.S. Not to split hairs or anything, but I was the one who split the studio entries... see this edit. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That's true. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. Grammar problems their for a minute, sorry about that John. Re-edited it. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)))
I prefer a merged row for the canon and non-canon release with a table note after the label as John suggested above, but I'm not overly against them remaining non-merged with a note next to the US certification to say it's a combination of the canon and non-canon versions. --JD554 (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand exactly where you're coming from on this, JD, I do, but as I said to John above, it is vital that we keep these four albums, plus Rarities in the comp. section, separate. It is because they are not the same albums, only by title they are, as the track listings are different. I know it complicates matters in terms of certifications since the US release of these (well, the UK versions, that is) back in 1987, and I apologise. They have to be left alone, though. I personally want to say you're doing really good work on this, and not to take anything away on that at all. Alas, might I try and convince you on what I'm saying. Also, if you like to, you could take out Yesterday and Today and Hey Jude albums from the studio albums section and place them in the compilation albums section, that would be no problem. Best, --Discographer (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-merged proposal

Alright, let's proceed with non-merged entries and a note or two. I think the notes should be attached to the US entries and should cover two points: the track list is different on post-1987 releases to match the UK version and the sales data is for combined sales of original track list and later track list. Here are two ways we might do this:

1: Add a single note indicator after each of the US album names:

A Hard Day's Night[A]
...
  • A^ The original US version of this release had different tracks than the UK version. For the 1987 re-release on CD, the US track list matched the original UK track list. US sales certifications represent the total of both versions.

or

2: Add a note indicator after the release date and another after the sales certification, roughly like this:

Released: 26 June 1964 (US)[A]      |   US: 4× Platinum[B]
...
  • A^ The original US version of this release had different tracks than the UK version. For the 1987 re-release on CD, the US track list matched the original UK track list.
  • B^ US sales certifications represent the total sales of the original US release and the post-1987 version with the revised track list.

For #2, the data would stay in the appropriate columns; I used a bar to indicate the column break.

I prefer a single note, but the italicized album title runs into the non-italic note indicator and looks sloppy. Perhaps there's a way to fix that. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer option two, it seems less ambiguous by being clearer why there are two versions and how the sales certification came about. --JD554 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Couple of questions

  • When there are two different cells for the US and UK versions of Rubber Soul, Revolver etc, why are the two versions of Sgt Pepper and The White Album etc on the same cell? Is there anything more to it than the fact the tracklists were different in the former, but the same in the latter?
  • Since per MOS:DISCOG we need only list the first release dates for an album (rightly so, we are not a repository of every date an album was released and re-released), why do we list both US and UK dates? (This seems especially odd when the UK/US releases dates are the same) Also, why this focus on only these two territories; if a album was released in Germany/Japan/Australia a month after it was in the UK/US, we don't seem to note that in the discography.

What I thus propose is to change our entries from
Let It Be

  • Label: Parlophone (UK)
  • Release date: 8 May 1970 (UK)
  • Label: United Artists (US)
  • Release date: 18 May 1970 (US)

to

Let It Be

throughout the discography. Makes the whole thing more compact also don't you think? indopug (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, look, the US releases in the 1960s sold more than the (definitive) UK ones. This is why we list both labels and dates. Also, we can revise it to look like this:

Let It Be

  • Label: Parlophone (UK), United Artists (US)
  • Release date: 8 May 1970 (UK), 18 May 1970 (US)
That wouldn't be no problem at all. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, that seems reasonable for the UK/US versions of the studio albums, but what about the compilations and live albums? Why do we need to note more than one release date for those? indopug (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Indopug, let's go ahead with it, since it's only for the post-1970 albums anyway. Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) For the 4 albums that were markedly different (different label, dsifferent release date, but most importantly, different track lists) but shared a name, I'd leave those as separate rows. They share a name, but they are not the same album. For the albums, including compilations, where the tracks are the same, I'd have a single release date and a single label, presumably, the earliest release. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

John, this is for the live and compilation albums only. We've done the studio albums already. Those four albums and Rarities will stay just as they are. Best, --Discographer (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Sgt. Pepper and others show two release dates and two labels. I don't think that's necessary, but I don't feel strongly about it. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
We have to show it like this John because EMI's Capitol division sold more than their Parlophone division. Also (you know this!), they're canon albums. Best, --Discographer (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I won't fight this or change the article, but I don't agree with the logic. We aren't listing the release dates in all countries, and who says that the country with the most sales wins? What about sales per capita, largest pre-orders, fastest sales, highest peak chart position? (Not serious about any of those, just pointing out that any one stat is not necessarily more important than others.) — John Cardinal (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I never really gave this any thought. Okay, say we do this, it would have to be for the post-Revolver albums only, with the exception of Yellow Submarine, because it was US-released first. So, in this case, we will use the UK release date for that album, even though it was released earlier, but we'll leave a note saying as to when it was actually (and originally) released in the US. Is that alright? Also, MMT is the only exception as to where we use the US version instead of the UK (and that has a note for it). Are we good with this, John? Best, --Discographer (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, I am going to change the live albums and compilations now such that both labels are mentioned (we shouldn't give the impression that it was released exclusively on a single label), but only earliest release date. indopug (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Discographer, I don't see why we would ever only list a release date that is not the earliest (even considering the "canonical" nature of some albums). In the case of Yellow Submarine, we can have it as "Release date: 13 January 1969 (US)", while for the others, like Pepper, just "Release date: 1 June 1967". (MMT is the same case as YS)
Another thing, Yellow Submarine (album) states that the album is by "The Beatles and George Martin". Any idea if this is true? Should we make a note of it in the discography? indopug (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay Indopug, with the exception of YS, let's go ahead and do this too. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Don't forget to leave that note in for MMT. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I took care of MMT and YS. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is now done. Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian chart posititions

I've tracked down the Canadian chart positions from the RPM magazine archives at Library and Archive Canada's website[2]. However, I've been unable to confirm the positions for Beatlemania! With The Beatles, Twist and Shout or The Beatles' Long Tall Sally (all listed as #1s). RPM started publishing charts in 1964 and carried on through to 2000, but they don't list The Beatles on an album chart earlier than December 1968[3]. Does anyone know where those positions came from? --JD554 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it seems I made a mistake here. These Capitol Canada releases I should not have listed any peak positions for. These peak positions should have been listed in the Extended plays section. My apologies. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A Hard Day's Night LP in Canada

The version of A Hard Day's Night (album) originally released in Canada was the United Artists album, NOT the Parlophone album. So that needs to be fixed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done --JD554 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Respective UK/US/Canada Discography

Hi~ First of all, I just want to say that this was one of the best Discog article I've seen. I've been using it for reference to complete my collections thus educate me more on their musical career releases (considering that I wasn't live in their hype era, that I really appreciate it explained them very much in detail). Yet, I'm not sure if most of you like this new format, but I pretty much prefer the old one, where the UK/US/Canad discog had its own respective sections. I don't mind the tables, but the previous version was so great with track list, times/weeks on chart, etc.. Now I'm hoping if it can be reverted (or at least adjusted) to show those details that current all-mixed-and-confusing tables don't. P.S. marking "†" just to indicate the official canon release just doesn't work.. It's not comparable with the amount of the whole table. Again, it's just a suggestion. Hope any of you'll consider it. There.. FYI, I am talking about this [4] version. Cheers. Christian Liberty (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read this entire talk page. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding to Discographer's response... read the recently-archived stuff, too. My recap on track lists: I've pushed to include track lists in previous discussions here. Others have opposed the track lists and (among other arguments) made reference to the guidelines covering discographies which specifically state not to include song lists. To go against that guideline, we ought to have a clear consensus by editors to go against the guideline. That hasn't happened. Someday I am going to raise the issue on he guidelines page but I need to gather my strength before I do so! <g> — John Cardinal (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart position layout

We can do this one of two ways, according to JD554. So, I would like to ask all the current editors working on this project, aside from myself, as to which version might you prefer:

  • UK, AUS, CAN, IRE, US, AUT, DEN, GER, HOL, NOR, SPA, SWE, SWI, EU (English language alphabetical ordering) - or,
  • UK, AUS, AUT, CAN, DEN, GER, HOL, IRE, NOR, SPA, SWE, SWI, US, EU (International alphabetical ordering).

Personally, this doesn't really matter to me as to which one we use. Unless anyone knows what might be the more used of the two, then we'll just use that one. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually prefer the following:
  • UK, US, AUS, AUT, CAN, DEN, GER, HOL, IRE, NOR, SPA, SWE, SWI, EU
because the US is the biggest—and arguably, most important—territory. Plus the American success of the Fabs is an integral part of The Beatles story. (by the way, why is EU stuck at the end and not alphabetically?) indopug (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
According to MOS:DISCOG#Per-release#6 international/multinational/worldwide charts should follow the country charts. --JD554 (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay then, we will proceed with using the top row. Best, --Discographer (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, chart positions are done now. I imagine either JD or Indopug will do the certifications now. Best, --Discographer (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Are the certs done? If so, you could have at least let me know. If it's not done, well, I guess I'll just finish it myself. (Waiting for a response...) Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added US certifications to the singles table. I think the certs for the albums are done (right?). One of us has to yet add CAN, GER, UK certs (if any) to the singles table.—indopug (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Foreign opinion

Hello, everybody

I'm Paso del lobo (meaning: step of the wolf), and I ask everybody take sorry for my poor english.

Also, I think the US 1965 The Early Beatles album isn't a compilation one. It's clearly an official album released this time by Capitol Records. We know the surrounding circunstance why this record was released in that date. This is a repackage of the very first US album of the Beatles released by Vee Jay Records (this wasn't, also, a compilation at that time). This is the fifth official album by Capitol Records, then comes the next one titled "Beatles VI".

Also, I think that the albums that didn't chart (My Bonnie, The Beatles with Tony Sheridan & Guests, Ain't She Sweet, The Beatles' First, etc.) musn't be there in the green coloured table. Better, these and all the other albums be stay in another cronological table (without the peak positions) to show what albums was released by the Beatles. The coloured tables should be only for the chart albums (this is the objective of this class of tables).

Also, From Then to You and The Beatles' Christmas Album shouldn't stay in a coloured table. We know that this two Christmas albums was released only for members of the official Beatles Fan Club, and thereby wasn't published for comercial release. That's why I say that it's better to create tables to shown all disc published by The Beatles.

So, I think it's not a good idea (not bad at all) splitting the albums released in UK and US with the same title. It took to much place for relating the same common information: the peak positions in the charts. Thereby, again, must needed a table for the UK discography and another for the US discography (look alike to that I have create in the spanish page).

I don't undestand why, in the single's table, the charts in all countries are (in the United State's column is OK) positioned so, as there was an independent chart for each side of the single. The only dude I have is the chart mechanism of the canadian singles. But for all the other countries, the chart is only for the A-side of the single. I think, to the UK's double A-sided singles, the chart make it for the whole single (for example: "We Can Work It Out" / "Day Tripper" is #1 for the whole single, and not #1 for both sides of the single). That's why the single is double A-sided: either one song or another of the disc can highly charted in the english chart. But only one of these two songs can reach the #1. So, the colums for the countries (except for the United States and, maybe, for Canada) are unfunny, and moves to confusion to the potencial readers.

That's my opinion. All at all, I apreciate this whole work. It's very nice done, and only time will say that this will be the page of reference of The Beatles discography. All what I have coment above is for helping in any form to all my friends that are working in this page, specially to Discographer that, I guess, is the guiding-workman of this page (I don't know where is living Discographer: United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia?) I'm looking time to time to this page, and I follow the work thereafter.

Best wishes for all; and for anything, I'm in the spanish page. --Paso del lobo (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Paso. I do agree with you about The Early Beatles album, though we must keep everything else where it is,. Also, I'm originally from Europe, but now live in Canada with my wife Amie and son (she's from Canada). That's why I love Sandra! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FLC

This discography is ready. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never been involved in a nomination process before, so I am bowing out of this. I would like to ask one of my four co-working friends who happen to be involved on this project with me if they can do this, please: John Cardinal, Indopug, JD554, Steelbeard1. Whichever one should, you have my total support. Also, if we get it, that's really great! If not, well, at least we tried! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Discographer, you were the driving force behind these edits and you should nominate it. There's no time like the present to figure out how the FLC process works. Other editors can comment, help with any suggested changes, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It's nominated! Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay my friends, this is nominated. As you know, if this gets FL status, it will be the first featured list discography that will be in color! Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, John, I need you to stay close with me please for these next few days that we go through this process, as you make answering difficult questions seem easy! Thanks, and thanks for your support! Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I need all of you to click on the FLC link, and please show your support by supporting The Beatles discography on that page. You too, Kiac! Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember: this discography must stay as is, that is, keeping all B-sides with their respective A-sides as that they happen to be equally important with one another, unlike in other discographies. The color tables need to stay as they are also, as previously explained above. Best, --Discographer (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawing nomination. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Apple/Parlophone

The albums from the White to Let it Be, & their singles, though officially 'on' Parlophone and with Parlophone catalogue numbers, were (at least in the UK) originally issued with Apple labels and sleeves. I can't see any mention of this rather important fact here. Rothorpe (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I was originally going to show Apple as the record label of choice for these albums, but since they are the same for the US as they are for the UK, in terms of Apple, I decided to stay with using Parlophone for the UK releases and Capitol for the US ones (as that is who really released these). I could have shown Apple following Parlophone/Capitol, but decided on continuing with the same shown pattern as with the other albums. Apple's logo is also shown on all of the compilation albums since Anthology 1, though again only Parlophone or Capitol is listed, since Apple is but a small part of EMI. It's something like Madonna, where Sire is the equivalent to Parlophone/Capitol, (her) Maverick is to (their) Apple, and Warner is to EMI. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your reasoning. But given the enormous visual impact of those first Apple records, not just the white album, but the singles with their apple picture in the black sleeve, sort of Parlophone in reverse, I've added a note. Rothorpe (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Best, --Discographer (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Are their any changes anybody wants to see made done in this discography? If so, let's talk about it on this talk page. We can still turn this into a Featured Article. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the US-only and Canada-only albums in separate sections from the studio albums. That's just my preference; I don't know what others think about it. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
And how about a distinction from compilations and box sets? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see indications of 'canon' releases for compilations, live albums, ep's, and singles (not just studio albums). VillageGreen1215 (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jude (1970 album)

Do you think that Hey Jude should be added to the studio albums list because, upon it's U.S. release, it was considered part of their studio discography in America. --213.83.125.225 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Past Masters

Since we have now agreed on other pages that PM is to be considered a Canon Album, I will mark it as such, do not change this without posting good arguments. CentraCross (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

To everyone who reguarly edits this page, some things are missing

Of cause, i wouldn't know where to start with editing the following, but aren't a few things missing.

  • Songs, Pictures and Stories of the Fabulous Beatles (1964) - OK, It's essentialy just a reissue of the American Introducing... The Beatles album released by Vee-Jay, and this time Vee-Jay again. But it still exsists and is another album. It would seem more normal to put it in the 'Studio albums' category (even if it is just another repackaging of an album - but Beatlemania! with the Beatles (Canada) is a repackage of With the Beatles (UK)). If it can't pass the studio albums barrior then a least let it be mentioned somewhere.
  • The Beatles vs The Four Seasons (1964) - OK, yet again, it's Introducing... The Beatles repackage by Vee-Jay again, but this time it's a double album, the other disc being Gold Hits by the Four Seasons. This shouldn't be in Studio albums, but rather in something like Compilation albums. It still exsists you know!
  • Another thing is the inclusion of bizarre things like The Beatles TV Series over these LPs. That should belong in a videography page. The films and VHS/DVD releases are fine enough, but the inclusion of this is plain silly. The Beatles aren't even in it (ala Yellow Submarine - except at the end). It just seems silly.

So my overall message is, well, all that! This article needs a bit of cleaning up i think. Signed and timed: --77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a few more things that are missing. Box sets thie time.

  • EP Collection' (1982) and Compact Disc EP Collection (1992) - Released on 7" in 1982 containing all of their 1963-1967 UK EPs plus a new one titled The Beatles (containing rarities). This is one of the worst mismentions (if i may) and is seems foolish for it to not be included. The 1992 box set contains the same material but on CD
  • Singles Collection (1976) and Compact Disc Singles Collection (1992) - Released on 7" box in 1976 and CD box in 1992. Contains all their UK singles.

So more point is - This is four not included albums/boxes and one silly included tv series. Please make note! Signed and timed: --77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign albums

At the moment, this page is very British, American and Canadian oriented so it needs to expand to cover releases in other countries. Also, could we include the catalogue number of the albums next to the record label? McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems a majority of Foriegn albums has been added to the compilation albums but some errors have been made, thus creating a large 1963, 1965 etc. rowspan. Still, the albums i mentioned above are missing. I couldn't add them without messing up the page. Signed and timed: --77.99.231.37 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This discography is not this: in the spanish wikipedia Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice what looks like an edit war brewing here. This change went ahead quite quickly, and got reverted back and forth. The discography has been stable for white a while with its current content, so, as this is a significant change, I suggest we allow more discussion before making such a change. It may be right or may be wrong, but folks need to get used to the idea. I've undone the change for now and would ask for pros and cons to be considered so that consensus may be reached. If that proves difficult we could raise an RfC here to ask the wider community to help consider the question. PL290 (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert additions to the article. Can we discuss whether they should be deleted, not whether they should be added. I don't think there is any reason why they cannot be added. The US and Canada are not more important than other countries, so if their albums are included, other foreign albums should also be included. Also, I've fixed the rowspans. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks PL. Okay then, for Mclay1's edits, we can go ahead with including these albums then, but only those that link to an actual page. I'll go ahead and support you on that. Best, --Discographer (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection either; what Mclay1 is saying seems reasonable enough—unless it's a British-only discography (which it's not), it's logical to include all other countries. If that were to increase the size inordinately, we might need to consider another reorg further down the line. PL290 (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to throw back the stick, but a majority of things are still missing. See the above section (where i list things) such as the American Songs, Pictures and Stories..., The Beatles vs. The Four Seasons, which are both VJ albums which could be included along with a reliable source (i'm terrible of whom at adding). The interview album Hear the Beatles Tell All (also VJ), both the Singles and EP box sets (released 1976/1982 and both on CD in 1992, officially by Parlophone/Apple), as well as a majority of other things. Promotional bits and bobs are missing, stil they appear in over artist discographies. Things like Sampler (for Capitol Albums Vol.1) and Love 4-Track Sampler still exsist. I don't know if this is worth any recognision, but in Germany, A Hard Day's Night was released as Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!. This could be included (because we have With the Beatles UK and Beatlemania!... Canada) - etc. etc. Sorry for all that. But it's still an incomplete list. --77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
As the scope of the list has now expanded to include all countries, there will doubtless be various things that come up and potentially need adding, in addition to those you mention here and further above. I think it will be just a matter of editors adding a new entry whenever a need's identified, and discussing specific points here when necessary. Business as usual for a WP article ... PL290 (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If we have separate articles for these (foreign) albums, and, very importantly, that they are not bootleg releases - like the three I've mentioned elsewhere on this talkpage - then they should be included here in this discography. They must be "official" releases however, as originally discussed. Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The principle of WP:NOTABILITY determines whether a topic merits its own article. You appear to be saying that when an item or topic does not merit its own article, it should not be included in a Wikipedia list either, even though there may be reliable sources confirming its existence. Is there a precedent for that interpretation in lists and discographies? It's certainly reasonable, but I am placing it alongside the idea that, for instance, a band member with no notability outside the band—and hence not allowed his own article—is nevertheless of course acknowledged on Wikipedia by coverage in the band article. I am interested to hear opinions on the applicability of the principle. Also the practicalities—for instance, is there an assumption that the resulting number of entries would be large, producing a practical problem? Thoughts invited. PL290 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs seems to indicate that an article about any "official" album by the Beatles is notable enough for an article, so I see no problem with listing it here. Notability for inclusion here is (much?) less than for an article, IMO. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Full titles

I believe the American version of A Hard Day's Night is called A Hard Day's Night: Original Motion Picture Sound Track and i also believe that the American version of Help! is also called Help!: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack. That's what the covers say the albums are. The Help! album is even mentioned under the full name i mentioned on The Capitol Albums, Volume 2.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone noticed The Beatles Tapes from the David Wigg Interviews is too missing, an interview album like the listed The Beatles' Story. --77.99.231.37 (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in U.S. chart positions

This recent edit points out an inconsistency in the singles section regarding U.S. chart positions. "Something" and "Come Together" are both listed as #1 based on the Billboard chart dated November 29, 1969 that listed Come Together/Something at #1. Asserting that "Something" was #1 assumes the flipside is also credited as having reached that position. If that is the case, "For You Blue" should also be listed as having reached #1 since it charted together with "The Long and Winding Road". In all of his Billboard books, Joel Whitburn shows only the first song listed as having reached its respective peak position and the second song is simply shown as a flipside or "tag-along". According to Whitburn, "Something" peaked at #3, the highest position it had reached before Billboard stopped listing two-sided hits separately. Following Whitburn's interpretation, "Something" would not be considered #1 any more than "For You Blue" was. Keep in mind, Billboard didn't necessarily distinguish which song was the A or B side, or automatically recognize double A-sides. Which side or sides that made the chart were based on strength of airplay. Piriczki (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that "Something" peaked at position 3 in accordance with Joel Whitburn's Record Research books, and originally it was shown as this too, until an editor had sourced Billboard.com showing that it topped the charts alongside "Come Together". Now to the consensual understanding, "Something" was printed in Billboard magazine as preceding "Come Together" when the single was at position 3 during a week in which the Billboard Hot 100 chart flipped the titles, and when the single topped the chart, it was shown as the reverse, with "Come Together" listed first. It is this methodology that Whitburn uses as his source for "Something" peaking at position 3 mirroring that of the printed week-ending issue that shows it listed ahead of "Come Together", and "Come Together" shown ahead of "Something" in its week-ending issue in which the single topped the charts. "The Long and Winding Road" itself topped the chart, only to have "For You Blue" shown as a tag-along title, nothing more than this. So, yes, "Something" should be changed back to position 3. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Gathering consensus for peak position change of "Something"

We need to get consensus on this matter to officially change this peak position and keep it at that.

Should be changed to position 3

Yes, this should be changed, as mentioned above. --Discographer (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote to change to #3 as I think the Whitburn interpretation makes more sense as mentioned above. Piriczki (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Should not be changed and remain at number-one

  1. I admit I haven't read (and don't have access to the books mentioned) but it should stay at number 1. Why else would it be included with 26 other number-one hits? ~DC We Can Work It Out 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    True, good point. These are good reasons why we need votes like this. Also, you and I both remember that it was you Deserted Cities who changed it in the first place! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    Haha, I honestly forget it was me. But one source that supports Something as a #1 song is their R&R HOF BIO. It doesn't actually say it reached #1 (it only mentions a few earlier songs rankings) but it says they had 20 #1s in the United States, which means they had to count Something as one of them. ~DC We Can Work It Out 21:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. The booklet to the compilation Beatle CD 1 (The Beatles album) states that "Something" was #1 for one week on the November 29, 1969 Billboard Hot 100 chart. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Well, I guess that vote went quick! Okay, then. I think I'll leave it at that unless otherwise proven differently. Thanks for researching that Steelbeard1! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify some of the facts here. There is no dispute that Come Together/Something was listed as #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 the week of November 29, 1969. The question is whether that should mean that both songs were #1 or if the second song listed is a flipside or "tag-along". Whitburn's books don't count two-sided hits as having both achieved the same peak position. Again, if "Something" is considered to have been #1 on the Hot 100, then so should "For You Blue" for the same reasons, but I don't think many would consider it to be a #1. In fact, on the Cash Box chart, where both sides were still listed separately, "Long and Winding Road" was #1 while "For You Blue" only made it to #71. Piriczki (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems that while this may be true, the songs have been treated differently, with "Something" considered a #1 and FYB not. ~DC We Can Work It Out 03:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments

This has come up before (cant find it) and i am still unsure... but heres what i found on the subject before (had them booked marked)- Moxy (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
1969: the year everything changed By Rob Kirkpatrick - page 25
The Beatles as musicians: Revolver through the Anthology By Walter Everett -page 251
1969 Number One Songs - sourced as Billboard but was it B or A side??

THe first source supports the claim that it was only #3, and the other support the claim that it reached #1. ~DC We Can Work It Out 03:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thats the problem we were having last time.....so what to do or say...is one referring to the song as #3 and the other the 45 both sides as #1...and/or just the song....?? ...So we have a #1 45/single as a whole - with one song B side at #1 and the other A side at #3...is what I seeMoxy (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Suggest a footnote tacked onto the number, explaining all this, would be the best solution. That way, we properly report what the soures say without getting involved in interpretation, and it makes it clear to prevent future confusion over this question. PL290 (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
That still leaves us with the question of which number we tack it onto. ~DC We Can Work It Out 10:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
A footnote would help but there will still be an inconsistency if the current positions remain. "Something" and "For You Blue" should either be shown as #3 and "—" or #1 and #1 with the same footnote for both. Piriczki (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
If sources also disagree about "For You Blue" (or any other song), then yes, per WP:NPOV, we should represent the conflicting sources in respect of that song too, at such time as disagreeing WP:RSs are identified. PL290 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest the two most authoritive sources for the different interpretations are The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits by Joel Whitburn (which supports the #3 position and is widely available) and The Billboard Book of Number 1 Hits by Fred Bronson (which is published by Billboard and refers to both Come Together/Something and Long and Winding Road/For You Blue as double-sided #1 hits). Piriczki (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

UK Certifications?

Why does only MAgical Mystery Tour have a certification listed? I'd imagine other Beatles albums have earned certs besides that.JohnM.Kelly (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the UK didn't have certifications in the 60s. The certification for Magical Mystery Tour will probably be for its CD release in the 80s. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Certifications were introduced in the UK in 1973. So under Wikipedia rules they have no sales frm the 1960s! The Beatles sold over 22 million singles in the UK.Beatles UK Singles sales(Coachtripfan (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC))

Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962

Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962 is definitely one of their albums(It was released in 1977), but was not stated at any time in the article. This needs to be fixed. --Snowconeboy789 04:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Was it an officially sanctioned release, or a Bootleg recording? --Jayron32 04:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Although it wasn't released by EMI, the original 2LP set on Lingasong was a legitimate release. Apple Corps., Lennon, Harrison and Starr made a late attempt to stop its release but were turned down by the High Court. In the U.S. it was distributed by Atlantic. Personally I think it should be included if the discography is to be considered complete. Piriczki (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree, we should add this very quickly. --Snowconeboy789 03:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it should be added; however, the speed at which it is added is not particularly important. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the Beatles' First Live Recordings, one of many re-issues of the Star Club material, has been added to the discography. While I think the original release should be included, I don't think it's a good idea to have every subsequent repackaging listed. Doing so would create a lot of unnecessary clutter. Piriczki (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and the First Live Recordings article looks like a merge candidate. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

A Toot and a Snore in '74

A Toot and a Snore in '74 is a rare album recorded and released in 1974. It is by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and some guests. The songs on this album are bootlegs. --Snowconeboy789 05:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not The Beatles so should not be included. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bootleg Albums

Should bootleg albums be included? If so, there are many, many Beatles bootleg albums listed here. --Snowconeboy789 05:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No, bootlegs are not proper albums and are illegal, so should not be promoted by Wikipedia as being part of a group's discography, which they are not. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Eh... it depends. There are, in existance, notable bootlegs (as described at WP:GNG), however nearly all of the albums listed of the list above would clearly fail the notability test. I wouldn't say that every bootleg is inappropriate... Just that most of them will be. --Jayron32 14:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hate

I heard this very weird album called "Hate" instead of "Love". I think it is a joke though. I've heard all of the songs. A link to a description of it is here: http://www.thebeatleshate.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowconeboy789 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a joke, and not actually a Beatles record. See parody. --Jayron32 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That's what I thought. --Snowconeboy789 05:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowconeboy789 (talk • contribs)

Missing Albums

Some albums here are missing. --Snowconeboy789 22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowconeboy789 (talk • contribs)

With a little help from my stems

There's a compilation album of novel mixes with the above title. The strange title leaves me wondering what the story behind it is.

Tracklist:

  1. Hello Goodbye - Orchestral Mix
  2. Octopus's Garden - Honky Tonk Piano Mix
  3. I Want You (She's So Heavy) - Sleazy Guitar Mix
  4. Here Comes The Sun - Acoustic Guitar Mix
  5. Norwegian Wood - Acoustic Guitar Mix
  6. Within You, Without You - Meditation Mix
  7. Sun King - Naked Mix
  8. I Me Mine - Drum and Bass Mix
  9. I'm Looking Through You - Acoustic Guitar Mix
  10. Yellow Submarine - Naked Acoustic Mix
  11. When I'm Sixty Four - Naked Mix
  12. You Never Give Me Your Money - Guitar Mix
  13. Something - Orchestral Mix
  14. I Feel Fine - Instrumental Mix (Just because this music track is awesome!)
  15. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
  16. Revolution
  17. You Never Give Me Your Money

Released by Stem Records Tabby (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

EPs pages to be made

Surely these EPs:

  • Requests
  • Beatles Again!
  • Hard Day's Night No.1
  • Beatles No.2
which appear in the EP table, should have pages. Anyone agree? I would make them but I don't have the time for anything, as it is. --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 17:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
It's been over a week, surely someone (besides me) has some spare time? --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Roll over Beethoven single?

Was there really ever a Roll over Beethoven single? If so, why is that not mentioned on the page for that song (it's simply listed as a song from With the Beatles). Either the single should be removed, or the page for the song should be updated to mention it. --Tdejong67 (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not an official Beatle single, but was released by some EMI units around the world as one, most notably by Capitol Records of Canada. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Singles release info?

Even if the dates are not going to be included (as stated above, is this still the current policy?), it would be great to state in the list in which country (or coutries) the various singles were released, and - if possible - by which labels. Currently you can sort of guess it from the chart positions, but a definitive statement would be very nice. Even a non-complete list like "it was definitely relased in Germany and maybe in other places" would be better than the current state. Catalogue numbers are probably too much to ask? If you think this information does not belong in Wikipedia - a link to an external page that has it would be great too! Thanks! -- 77.189.64.130 (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Their entire discography : http://www.ajonobook.com/ajonobook/Home.html --Roujan (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Record Store Day Box Set

What about the 4x7" boxset coming out for record store day tomorrow? Stamp: TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the one for RSD Black Friday last year? yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
So is it suitable for the discography?--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How many tracks really? 217, 218, or 219?

According to a playlist I put together, there are 219 Beatles tracks from the core catalog after you weed out different versions of the same song. Now, if you consider Revolution 1 and Revolution to be the same track (which I don't think is correct since they're such different tempos) then that's 218. What brings it down to 217? Excluding Her Majesty since it was a "hidden" track? Or maybe excluding Revolution 9 because it's not a "real song" (I don't think that's right either.) If not maybe I have a duplicate in the list below; I couldn't find one though:

1. Across The Universe 2. Act Naturally 3. All I've Got To Do 4. All My Loving 5. All Together Now 6. All You Need Is Love 7. And I Love Her 8. And Your Bird Can Sing 9. Anna (Go To Him) 10. Another Girl 11. Any Time At All 12. Ask Me Why 13. Baby's In Black 14. Baby It's You 15. Baby You're A Rich Man 16. Back In The U.S.S.R. 17. Bad Boy 18. The Ballad Of John And Yoko 19. Because 20. Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite! 21. Birthday 22. Blackbird 23. Blue Jay Way 24. Boys 25. Can't Buy Me Love 26. Carry That Weight 27. Chains 28. Come Together 29. The Continuing Story Of Bungalow Bill 30. Cry Baby Cry 31. A Day In The Life 32. Day Tripper 33. Dear Prudence 34. Devil In Her Heart 35. Dig A Pony 36. Dig It 37. Dizzy Miss Lizzy 38. Do You Want To Know A Secret 39. Doctor Robert 40. Don't Bother Me 41. Don't Let Me Down 42. Don't Pass Me By 43. Drive My Car 44. Eight Days A Week 45. Eleanor Rigby 46. The End 47. Every Little Thing 48. Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me And My Monkey 49. Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby 50. Fixing A Hole 51. Flying 52. The Fool On The Hill 53. For No One 54. For You Blue 55. From Me To You 56. Get Back 57. Getting Better 58. Girl 59. Glass Onion 60. Golden Slumbers 61. Good Day Sunshine 62. Good Morning Good Morning 63. Good Night 64. Got To Get You Into My Life 65. Happiness Is A Warm Gun 66. A Hard Day's Night 67. Hello, Goodbye 68. Help! 69. Helter Skelter 70. Her Majesty 71. Here Comes The Sun 72. Here, There And Everywhere 73. Hey Bulldog 74. Hey Jude 75. Hold Me Tight 76. Honey Don't 77. Honey Pie 78. I'll Be Back 79. I'll Cry Instead 80. I'll Follow The Sun 81. I'll Get You 82. I'm A Loser 83. I'm Down 84. I'm Happy Just To Dance With You 85. I'm Looking Through You 86. I'm Only Sleeping 87. I'm So Tired 88. I've Got A Feeling 89. I've Just Seen a Face 90. I Am The Walrus 91. I Call Your Name 92. I Don't Want To Spoil The Party 93. I Feel Fine 94. I Me Mine 95. I Need You 96. I Saw Her Standing There 97. I Should Have Known Better 98. I Wanna Be Your Man 99. I Want To Hold Your Hand 100. I Want To Tell You 101. I Want You (She's So Heavy) 102. I Will 103. I`ve Just Seen a Face 104. If I Fell 105. If I Needed Someone 106. In My Life 107. The Inner Light 108. It's All Too Much 109. It's Only Love 110. It Won't Be Long 111. Julia 112. Kansas City/Hey-Hey-Hey-Hey! 113. Lady Madonna 114. Let It Be 115. Little Child 116. The Long And Winding Road 117. Long Tall Sally 118. Long, Long, Long 119. Love Me Do 120. Love You To 121. Lovely Rita 122. Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds 123. Maggie Mae 124. Magical Mystery Tour 125. March Of The Meanies 126. Martha My Dear 127. Matchbox 128. Maxwell's Silver Hammer 129. Mean Mr. Mustard 130. Michelle 131. Misery 132. Money (That's What I Want) 133. Mother Nature's Son 134. Mr. Moonlight 135. The Night Before 136. No Reply 137. Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) 138. Not A Second Time 139. Nowhere Man 140. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da 141. Octopus's Garden 142. Oh! Darling 143. Old Brown Shoe 144. One After 909 145. Only A Northern Song 146. P.S. I Love You 147. Paperback Writer 148. Penny Lane 149. Pepperland 150. Pepperland Laid Waist 151. Piggies 152. Please Mister Postman 153. Please Please Me 154. Polythene Pam 155. Rain 156. Revolution 157. Revolution 1 158. Revolution 9 159. Rock And Roll Music 160. Rocky Racoon 161. Roll Over Beethoven 162. Run For Your Life 163. Savoy Truffle 164. Sea Of Holes 165. Sea Of Monsters 166. Sea Of Time 167. Sexy Sadie 168. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 169. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise) 170. She's a Woman 171. She's Leaving Home 172. She Came In Through The Bathroom Window 173. She Loves You 174. She Said She Said 175. Slow Down 176. Something 177. Strawberry Fields Forever 178. Sun King 179. A Taste Of Honey 180. Taxman 181. Tell Me What You See 182. Tell Me Why 183. Thank You Girl 184. There's A Place 185. Things We Said Today 186. Think For Yourself 187. This Boy 188. Ticket to Ride 189. Till There Was You 190. Tomorrow Never Knows 191. Twist And Shout 192. Two Of Us 193. Wait 194. We Can Work It Out 195. What Goes On 196. What You're Doing 197. When I'm Sixty-Four 198. When I Get Home 199. While My Guitar Gently Weeps 200. Why Don't We Do It In The Road? 201. Wild Honey Pie 202. With A Little Help From My Friends 203. Within You Without You 204. The Word 205. Words Of Love 206. Yellow Submarine 207. Yellow Submarine In Pepperland 208. Yer Blues 209. Yes It Is 210. Yesterday 211. You're Going To Lose That Girl 212. You've Got To Hide Your Love Away 213. You Can't Do That 214. You Know My Name (Look Up The Number) 215. You Like Me Too Much 216. You Never Give Me Your Money 217. You Really Got A Hold On Me 218. You Won't See Me 219. Your Mother Should Know Dancindazed (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If there's a mis-interpretation on this, I'll go back through it later. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, if you own a copy of The Beatles Stereo Box Set, you will see that on the back of the box, that it reads 217 songs. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay so the article says 217 tracks, there's actually 219 tracks and 217 songs (If we're saying Revolution 9 is not a song, which I'm okay with.) So the article should be changed to 217 songs or 219 tracks, whichever. The 219 tracks listed above are all from the core catalog, Please Please Me, With the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles for Sale, Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Magical Mystery Tour, The Beatles (White Album), Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road, Let It Be, Past Masters Volume One, Past Masters Volume Two. Dancindazed (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC) I went ahead and changed it to 217 songs in the article since it's what it says on the stereo box, and also it makes more sense because the different versions of the same songs are still separate tracks. If counting tracks themselves the count is closer to 230. So counting songs, as on the box set, makes more sense. Dancindazed (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"Tracks" is a more accurate description as a handful of songs were recorded as different versions such as "Love Me Do", "Across The Universe" and "Let It Be." Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This is correct, and to go along with this, by clicking on each album's page link and calculating the total number issued for each album = 217.
217 total. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a mistake. Those numbers added together equal 227, not 217. The only way the number 217 is arrived as is if songs are counted. Not tracks. The duplicate tracks of the same songs are being taken out of the total and Revolution 9 is also being removed and that's how the number 217 was arrived at. (Either that or it was a typo all along and the box set meant to say 227). See, when I read 217 tracks in the article my first thought was that it sounded low, because a playlist I have of those albums has 227. Then I thought 217 must be the number after you remove the duplicate songs (also removing the foreign language versions that appear on past masters) but when I did that, I came out to the list of 219 above. The only way to get it down to 217 is to say Revolution 9 is not a song and count both Revolution 1 and Revolution as one song. At that point the word track has nothing to do with it anymore. It's either 227 tracks (if you want to count the duplicates and revolution 9) or 217 songs. It's not 217 tracks. Since my contribution was reverted, I'll leave it to you. Dancindazed (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC) P.S. Let It Be actually has 12 tracks, not 13, so the actual number of tracks is 226. I looked at my playlist again after writing. Nonetheless, still 217 songs if you remove the duplicates and Revolution 9. Dancindazed (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, we'll have to change this to songs then. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Cheers :) Dancindazed (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for Fundamental Revision of this Discography

There is no doubt that The Beatles' discography is complex for a variety of reasons but although there is useful and authoritative information to be found in this article, it seems to me that it is badly served in terms of clarity and accessibility. I have read the talk on this article, perceive an impasse and reading from other suggestions and objections, have a proposal which, although a radical revision, might enable some creative thinking on implementing preceding suggestions.

It seems that all opinion on The Beatles discography, here and elsewhere, could agree that the original UK studio albums represent the definitive and now canonical discography. Additionally, Apple-initiated releases since the early 90's (following Apple's regaining of control of releases) also represent a continuation of the canon, in that these releases from 1994's 'Live at the BBC' onwards represent the release of original and previously unreleased live material, outtakes and remixes initiated by, involving and approved by the surviving band-members and their official organisation. The nature of these releases vary but they emanate 'from The Beatles' in a way that EMI's post-breakup compilations did not.

A sub-category within the discography of 'Primary Releases' (a working designation to which 'UK' and/or 'Approved' and/or 'Original' could be added, albeit inelegantly.) would therefore list the canonical set of studio albums followed by 'Live at the BBC', 'Anthology 1-3', 'Let It Be Naked', 'Yellow Submarine Songtrack' and 'Love'. To restate: These albums contain ORIGINAL and previously unreleased material, sanctioned and developed by The Beatles and Apple Corps. The Capitol albums in America and other countries do NOT constitute 'primary' 'original' and/or 'approved' releases in terms of the intentions of either artist or producer. They could therefore form a second section of the discography marked 'Secondary Releases' (again a working designation)

The 'Compilation Albums' section of the current discography is self-explanatory and appropriately designated once we remove 'Anthology' and other albums containing original, unreleased and approved material, which cannot usefully be classified as 'compilation' material in the intended sense of 'previously issued material compiled in new format'.

While recognising that current convention in the use of 'Compilation Album' seems to allow albums of original, previously-unreleased material, it is not INTENDED to do so but rather has been habitually misused in this aspect. It seems to me that there is no reason why The Beatles discography should be afflicted by this misuse and, moreover, that rectifying this unilaterally, may affect (another) innovation, as is perfectly in keeping with all matters Beatle. Let others follow. We should lead the way here.

Michaelk xsx (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

UK Studio albums as "official" albums

Should the studio albums be the official UK ones? The US relases eg Beatles 65 were oftem mixes of two studio albums. When the Beatles studio albums were released on CD they followed the UK album releases. US and other studio albums could be in a compilation section.Magical Mystery Tour was an EP in the UK but LP in US. (Coachtripfan (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC))

Have to agree the listing at present is absurd. Who cares about some American/Canadian mixers, The Beatles studio albums are, Please Please Me, With the Beatles, A hard days night, Beatles for sale, Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery tour *, White Album *(The Beatles), Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let it be, those others in the discography list are simply bits of flotsam. Pushbutton auto (talk)

Paul getting song catalogue back?

I've just overheard on the radio that Paul could be getting the Sony share from the Beatles song catalogue back that was bought by Michael Jackson back in the 80s, something to do with some copyright law saying that an artist, if still alive, gets all rights back 50 years after their work has been first released. Unfortunately, I didn't make it to my headphones in time to hear the details. In any case, if true this would sure be a notable item. --37.83.72.233 (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S. it's 56 years for songs published prior to 1978 so it's still a few years away. Piriczki (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Over the past few years McCartney has filed notices of termination for most of the Beatles' songs so he could be getting them back starting in 2019. Brian Wilson has done the same to get his songs back from Sea of Tunes. Piriczki (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

UK albums finally get certifications

The Beatles original albums were never certified as BPI certifications didn't start until 1973. But now album sales since 1994 (when the Official Charts Company took over as chart compilers) are eligible for certifications automatically if they pass the right certification levels. Sergeant Pepper is now triple platinum - having sold 900,000 since 1994. Beatles albums get certified!(Coachtripfan (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

Wow. Just imagine how many more platinum certifications they would have today if the counting had started in 1961/2 ! Clausgroi (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sheridan

The Tony Sheridan singles like Take Out Some Insurance and Sweet Georgia Brown need to be identified with footnotes as is done with the 1961 My Bonnie single. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

In addition, the Sheridan singles were not Beatle-lead. None of the compositions was written by any of the Beatles, except "Cry for a Shadow". Contemporary songs like these would be put in their own category as, in this example, would be Tony Sheridan featuring The Beatles. Considering that this is not the way the EP was marketed, it could be classified differently. Regardless, it was not a Beatles release, and needs to be put in its own category somehow. dnsla23 18:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Categorised albums

Does anyone else think that the 13 core catalog albums should be listed separately as well as official compilations should be separated from unofficial ones and box sets, I made the changes but a certain someone kept reverting them this is what the changes looked like. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Beatles_discography&oldid=608358366 Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User-defined terms such as "core" catalog and "unofficial" compilations have no place in an encyclopedia. There are far too many users editing discography articles with various categorizations, color-coding and other pointless changes. A discography is simply a list of all records released by a particular artist in chronological order, sometimes divided between singles and albums or by country of origin, but that's it. The rest is just window dressing contrived by editors that have nothing of substance to contribute. Unfortunately, most discography articles mimic commercial web sites that incorrectly use the term "discography" to identify what is actually just a list of currently available releases for sale. Piriczki (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It just makes it easier for people to see what is official and what is not. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Readers, as well as other editors, have no way of knowing what your definition of "official" is. Piriczki (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I included a reference to the Beatles website that shows what is official. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So by "official" you mean CDs currently available for sale at beatles.com? That's not a discography, that's an online store. Piriczki (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious what he means. You know. I know. Everyone knows - Please Please Me, With The Beatles, Hard Days Night and so on. Sheesh! Why be so awkward about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.53.45 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Have the Beatles albums catergorised by Official Studio Albums (British releases), Unofficial Studio Albums (eg US only releases), Major International Compilations (eg 62-66, 67-70, Rarities,20 Greatest hits, 1 etc) , Other Compilations, Live Albums. [[5]] how a split is done for ABBA regarding complilations. (Coachtripfan (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC))

20 Greatest Hits/ no.50 in US

This reached [[6]] on the US charts (86.31.33.45 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC))

Treatment for combined-sides single peaks

Carrying over from a discussion with Bossanoven on my talk page. Is anyone able to re-format the chart peaks for double A-side singles to show that both sides were combined? For instance (and AllMusic is wrong on this), Something and Come Together combined topped the Billboard Hot 100; before 29 November 1969, they were listed separately – Something hit number 3 for two weeks, Come Together peaked at number 2 but then dropped to number 7. While the discussion at my Talk started off as purely US-focused, it's rather blinkered, because this issue is relevant to double A-sides in the UK also, and Holland (I've just noticed [scroll down to Singles, two-thirds down). For the likes of Day Tripper/We Can Work It Out, Yellow Sub/Eleanor Rigby, Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane and Something/Come Together, in the UK and Netherlands, all the chart peaks apply to the combined sides, yet we repeat the number for each single's second side. Personally, I don't see a problem with that repetition. But Bossanoven is concerned that, with changes I've recently made in this discography, the total of US number 1s now exceeds a certain recognised number. My point is that Something and For You Blue were each listed at number 1 on Billboard, in the same way that both sides were listed in the UK and Holland for Day Tripper/We Can Work It Out, Yellow Sub/Eleanor Rigby, etc. In other words, if matching a recognised total is so important, then the number of UK and Dutch number 1s and top tens is obviously wildly out also.

As I say, I'm not really bothered with how it's set out right now. But if it is a concern, then it's certainly not confined to the US/Billboard, and reformatting for all such instances would be the logical solution. JG66 (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

So @Discographer: got any thoughts on the above? JG66 (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Billboard's policy for 1969-1971 A-side / B-side releases have no affect on any UK/European charted releases. As for in the US, in that era, Billboard would show both sides of a single (together) if both charted simultaneously, even if both charted at different positions, usually with emphasis on the first title, as the title that followed was known as a "tagalong". This policy change was dismissed in 1971. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, firstly, why is I'm having to take your word for this, when I've been supplying sources (in the change I made, and in the discussion on my talk page)? I noticed you said recently, "you won't find that song as a U.S. chart-topper", referring to "Something". Well, here's another reference, from Billboard, giving the peak position for both Something and For You Blue as number 1.
The other references I have – aside from countless reliable sources stating that "Something"/"Come Together", combined, hit number 1 – include Harry Castleman & Walter J. Podrazik's [http://www.amazon.com/All-Together-Now-discography-1961-1975/dp/B009MDJZD4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423832822&sr=1-1 All Together Now] and Nicholas Schaffner's The Beatles Forever. Castleman & Podrazik include pages of chart tables from Billboard showing every entry/trajectory for a Beatle-related song or album (with copyright acknowledgement to Billboard Publications, Inc., at the top of every page). They report separate, simultaneous runs on Billboard for "Something" and "Come Together" from 18 October to 22 November: on that last date, "Something" is at number 3, for the second week; "Come Together" has fallen from its peak of number 2 the previous week to number 7. The two chart trajectories end there, replaced on 29 November by a new, combined listing (in the order: "Something"/"Come Together"), with the single at number 1 on the Hot 100. Schaffner also lists "Something"/"Come Together" as a number 1, in his end-of-chapter chart table "The Beatles' Hits – September 1968 through April 1970". He supplies a footnote with the entry, saying: "On Nov. 29, 1969, Billboard stopped giving separate listings to both sides of singles." On google, unfortunately, there's a huge gap in Billboard back issues from September until 27 December 1969; here are the two songs listed together for 27 December, the order of the sides now reversed. That AllMusic list of Awards is wrong, I believe; it gives a peak of number 3 for "Something", which would make some sense if number 2 appeared beside "Come Together" (i.e. their individual peaks), but in fact they were combined, and listed as such, from that week of 29 November onwards.
The same is true for "Long and Winding Road" and "For You Blue" – and AllMusic does gives a number 1 chart peak for the latter song. Schaffner lists the single entry as "The Long and Winding Road"/"For You Blue", as do Castleman & Podrazik.
Also, you say: "Billboard's policy for 1969-1971 A-side / B-side releases have no affect on any UK/European charted releases." No, but I think you're missing the point I was making. Under 1969 in the Beatles' Singles list, we give two UK number 1s and two UK number 4s; that would suggest they had four top-five singles in the UK that year. They didn't, they had three, one of which was a double A-side. As mentioned, it's a similar situation with the Dutch chart peaks. That's relevant, surely, if anyone's concerned about matching a magic number of hits in a particular territory – those Guinness Book of Hit Singles would equally have a precise total. But anyway, your objections seem to be based on a Billboard "policy". Where does this come from? How does it match the sources I've provided? JG66 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Since the question is really about the Billboard Hot 100 chart rather than the Beatles specifically, I suggest the definitive sources here are the Fred Bronson and Joel Whitburn reference books. Unfortunately, the two differ on this subject. Personally, I prefer Whitburn's interpretation that the second title listed is a tag-along and doesn't merit the same ranking. Does anyone really think "For You Blue" was the most popular song in the country? It peaked at #71 in Cash Box and was off the chart long before "The Long and Winding Road" made it to #1 on their chart. Bronson, however, considers both to be #1 and since his book is published by Billboard, I would think that would have to be considered the final word. Since the chart combines both titles into one position, may I suggest the discography do the same and show one peak position for both titles, for example:
Title UK US
"Penny Lane"
"Starwberry Fields Forever" 		2 1
8
"Hey Jude"
"Revolution" 		1
— 		1
12
"Something"
"Come Together" 		4 1
This would also resolve the 20 or 22 number ones question. The Beatles had 20 #1 records consisting of 22 songs. Piriczki (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go along with that, seems fair. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Perfect, yes. I think the same needs to be done in the UK column for those other double A-sides I mentioned, and for the same singles under "NL". (Who knows, perhaps for other countries appearing in the table, I didn't look too thoroughly.) Thanks, JG66 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been resolved. Indeed, Piriczki's presentation is that of Billboard's as presented in Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Singles: 1955-2010 book. Could someone please notify me when the appropriate changes have been made? I wish to add in the US Cashbox performance to the Singles section. - Bossanoven (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made the appropriate changes. I shall now add in the Cashbox singles performance. - Bossanoven (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jude re-release

Hey Jude was re-released, at least in some countries, in early 1976. It charted at #12 in the UK and #16 in the Netherlands. If it had a B-side, could someone please add it? Some of this can be seen at the article Hey Jude. Some of it comes from The Beatles Forever by Nicholas Schaffner. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Revolution" was the listed B-side, as was on the original release. Many singles were re-released in 1976, see here. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
All 22 original UK singles plus "Yesterday" were re-issued in the UK on March 6, 1976 and several of them re-entered the singles chart. It's probably not necessary to list them all twice. A note at the bottom the table should be sufficient. Piriczki (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We have all of those which charted in the UK Top 20 listed except this Hey Jude re-issue. Why would we make this one exclusion? - Bossanoven (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the original UK singles re-issued in 1976 are listed. "Yesterday" was a new UK single, "Got to Get You Into My Life" was a new US single and "Back in the USSR" was a new UK single, both from the Rock 'n' Roll Music album, and "Ob-la-di Ob-la-da" was a new US single. Piriczki (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

OK... but what I said stands. Everything that charted in the UK Top 20 is listed except this one re-release. Makes it seem incomplete. - Bossanoven (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

1976 UK charted re-entries

Title Original
Peak 		1976
Re-entry
Peak 		UK Cat. &
Label No.
"Hey Jude" 1 12 Apple R 5722
"Paperback Writer" 1 23 Parlophone R 5452
"Get Back" 1 28 Apple R 5777
"Strawberry Fields Forever"
(1976 re-entry w/o "Penny Lane") 		2 32 Parlophone R 5570
"Help!" 1 37 Parlophone R 5305

Source: British Hit Singles (Guinness)

Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Discographer: thank you, would you please be so kind as to add in the B-sides if there were any? I will then incorporate it onto the article. - Bossanoven (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. These are the same records, same catalog numbers, that charted previously, they just re-entered the chart. A discography doesn't have a separate entry each time a record re-enters the chart. For instance, there is not a separate entry every time Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road re-entered the charts over the years. Piriczki (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I'm wrong. I overlooked the fact that these are the same catalog numbers. Much ado about nothing, I'm afraid. - Bossanoven (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove the digital-only shit

it's so confusing when an official (!) source of knowledge lists garbage entries. something that is digital is NOT a release. "oh look I uploaded a beatles song to itunes, I made a release!" DELETE that nonsense!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.181.63 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour

The discography states that Magical Mystery Tour was released as an album in the UK and the US on the same date (27 November 1967). If I'm not mistakes the Magical Mystery Tour album was only released in the UK in 1976. Before that it was a double EP in the UK. warpozio (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Split article into different media?

The title is The Beatles discography, but there are also music videos and films. Should the article be divided into new sections and the new sections correctly named The Beatles Filmography and The Beatles Videography, etc.?TechnoTalk (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There's not enough to split unless someone wants to really expand Filmography and Videography. The only comparable article I can think of is Elvis Presley. It has a separate filmography article but it is much more than a table of films. Sundayclose (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll see if I have time to do something down the road. Just wanted to see if anyone else felt it was worthwhile to clarify. A similar thing is going on here, to an even greater degree of difficulty R.D. Burman filmography. This is a list of films that R.D. Burman did the soundtrack for, so it should be called discography except for one glaring problem - from what I can see, none of the soundtracks have their own articles, and to try to do so now would be a Herculean task.Timtempleton (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Beatles_discography/Archive_3&oldid=1151000071"