Talk:The Beatles

this needs a lot of attention, YUCK it is a mile of text Robert Tito |  Talk  20:42, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

In my initial copy from Wikipeida, I copied from the regular page. When I realized my mistake, I went back and copied from the Wikipedia "edit" page, which brought in the wiki features. Looks better now.Greg Miller-Breetz 21:13, 27 March 2007 (CDT) LOL, well that indeed will look better (didn't peek :) ) Robert Tito |  Talk  21:27, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

©

watch out with the pictures for copyright issues.

The pictures aren't actually there (here) and I don't even know how to load them on the site.Greg Miller-Breetz 22:14, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Get the royalty free pictures somewhere (freeware, gpld, or another CC-license) get them on your PC. Use the upload-file page and upload the images (mind the correct name AND usage of capitals), insert an uploaded image using [[Image:name.ext|thumb|blablabla|left|400px]] or some other setting - trial and error. Robert Tito |  Talk 

Citations

First of all, aren't there too many? This article is so cluttered with footnote citations that it is almost unreadable. In some sections virtually every sentence has a citation. Based on the criteria listed at CZ:Article mechanics#Citations, I believe many of these citations can be eliminated. Simple statements of fact (such as release dates of albums) don't need a reference.

Also, we need to check these references, most of which came into Citizendium from Wikipedia. Just looking at the first two is not encouraging. The first points to Rolling Stone reviews of Beatles albums as a reference for "They are among the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music." Well, sure, RS likes them, but that doesn't prove anything. The second footnote mentions a nonexistent Encarta reference. --Eric Winesett 23:51, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

I would think that the "most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands" section needs less a footnote and more the "gentle guidance of an expert" -- there's no one footnote which can really prove that a group is among the most acclaimed bands ever, it's just something that anyone who has ever taught a popular music course (or even a classical course with a popular component) would agree with. What I'd hate to have is a situation like the Wikipedia article on Stravinsky where the list of 100 most influential figures of the 20th century from Time Magazine (a minor source for the history of classical music) is cited in the first sentence in order to give a source for Stravinsky being one of the most important composers of the twentieth century. Michael Scott Cuthbert 17:29, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Dates

Just edited the intro. Changed the start of the band fom 1962 to 1960, and the break-up from 1969 to 1970 - I believe this is correct, and makes the intro consistent with the rest of the article.--Mark Smith 18:44, 21 August 2008 (CDT)