Eisspeedway

Talk:1962–1966

Redirect?!

When I type "Red Album", it sends me to the Beatles album page and I really think that it should send me to the King Crimson's album "Red", because it's much more likely that when someone types "Red Album", this person wants to go to the page of the album called "Red", not to a "best of" album, the is not even called "Red". I don't know how to change the redirection, but someone else could do it. The Chicken 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known songs neglected

I understand that a Beatles Greatest Hits list is extremely difficult, but they could've at least thrown in well known songs Do You Want To Know A Secret (a #2 hit) and I Saw Her Standing There. Both are very well known and often requested. Retromaniac

Those songs weren't included since those tracks were only released as singles in the U.S., not in the U.K. Jason 01:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense, since "Nowhere Man" was released as a single only in the US. Perhaps it's a similar situation with the 1 compilation, only singles that reached #1 in either country are included (plus b-sides). freshacconci talktalk 13:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please Please Me was the B-side to I Wanna Hold Your Hand. And Girl was never released as a single. DC T•C 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. So we have no idea of the criteria for selection. Oh well. freshacconci talktalk 14:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The B-side of "I want to hold your hand" was "This Boy". "Please Please Me" was a single. This was a collection of songs, not necessarily hit singles. On 67-70, there are four tracks from Sgt. Pepper and three from the white album, none of which were singles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI "And I Love Her", "Eight Days a Week" and "Yesterday" were also released as singles only in the U.S. "And I Love Her" reached #12 on the Billboard chart, while "Eight Days a Week" and "Yesterday" both reached #1, and "Nowhere Man" reached #3. When the originator of this topic mentioned "Do You Want to Know a Secret", a Vee-Jay single, being "a #2 hit", that was again referencing the Billboard chart in the U.S. In addition, the Vee-Jay single "Twist and Shout" reached #2, their "Please Please Me" single reached #3, and the flipside of their "Love Me Do" single (itself #1), "P.S. I Love You", reached #10. And while "This Boy" was of course the original UK B-side of "I Want to Hold Your Hand", in the U.S. the B-side was "I Saw Her Standing There", which reached #14. Meanwhile, "All My Loving" was a single not in the U.S., but in Canada, and still reached #45 on Billboard's U.S. chart. "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away", "Drive My Car", "Norwegian Wood", "Michelle", "In My Life" , as well as "Girl", were not singles in either the U.S. or UK. On 67-70, there were also two tracks from the Magical Mystery Tour EPs/LP that were not singles in either country, plus two tracks from Abbey Road and one from Let It Be. "The Long and Winding Road" was a U.S.-only single, which went to #1. 2601:545:8201:6290:D9DE:C0C4:52E2:410C (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I bet the source that says Klein picked the songs (cite 1) might give an explanation for his choices. DC T•C 04:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock or pop?

I know it says rock and roll here, but the red album really does sound very teeny-popish. My music collection only has room for single genres (as in rock or pop, not rock/pop), so which one is it really? JayKeaton 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's rock The Chicken 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actully, it is pop not rock. I aggree with JayKeaton that it sounds very teeny-popish. Rock and roll is the same thing as rock. I think a lot of people shorten it as it sounds a bit cooler. Sco1996 | I will respond. 15:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many problems

In addition to three items I tagged as {{Fact}} that appear to contradict what I can verify about the album, the table smacks of OR, and even then, some of the info in the table is incorrect.

As far as I can determine, both 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 were compiled by Allan Steckler, an employee of ABKCO (Allen Klein's company), which at that time was managing Apple Records in the United States. The Beatles had no involvement whatsoever with any aspect of the albums. Indeed, they came out in the United States about two weeks before their UK release. Also, the two albums were compiled, at least in part, as a response to a heavily promoted bootleg, The Beatles Alpha Omega, a 4-record, 4-tape set that came out in 1972 and was even advertised on television in the U.S.; the boot's availabiliy made the point that there was no true "greatest hits" collection of the Beatles available in America at that time. Cheemo 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of the colour red

I have removed the claim that the Beatles chose the colour red for this album to show support for Liverpool F.C. Aside from the fact the other album is blue so we might as well suggest that indicates that they must be Evertonians, it's unsourced and extremely unlikely to be true. There has been a request for a source and none has been provided. In fact, there is no source for the claim that the Beatles helped select the tracks or helped with the album design at all (I seem to remember reading that McCartney did but not the others, though they may have done I suppose). Forgive me if I am wrong, but the suggestion that the Beatles picked red to show support for LFC sounds as though it's been made up by a Liverpool fan who either assumes this is the case or would like others to think it is. Some Liverpool fans like to proclaim that the Beatles were keen Liverpool supporters when in fact there is no evidence for this and almost certainly no truth to in it whatsover, and it's interesting that the contributer in question did not go over to 1967-1970 to make any similar reference to the choice of the colour blue indicating the Beatles' affection for Everton FC. Fact is, only one of the Beatles were even remotely interested in football (McCartney) and strictly speaking, he is an Evertonian (although he maintains he supports both clubs). Ringo, according to the Guardian, is an Arsenal fan. Neither George or John had any interest in football whatsoever and it is unknown which if any team they favoured, even there families don't know, although Harrison did seem to imply once that he supported Tranmere Rovers rather than Everton or Liverpool (Lennon added a Liverpool player, Albert Stubbins, to the Sgt. Pepper cover but later said he only did so because he knew he was his father's favourite player and that he himself actually knew nothing about Stubbs). There is a remote possibility that if the group were involved in the album's design that they may have chose red and blue in reference to the two Merseyside football clubs, but if it is so there should be a source for this and it should be made clear that this was not a show of support for one club over the other, which gives a false impression (whether intended or not). MarkB79 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sco1996 | I will respond. 15:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized Beatles compilations before "1962-1966"

Hi, anonymous user here. I found out about a 4-LP set called "Alpha Omega" that was a Beatles compilation sold through infomercials back in 1972 that supposedly got EMI to compile the hits onto "1962-1966" and "1967-1970". But some people claim that the "Alpha Omega" set was withdrawn from the markets since it wasn't legitimate.

Does anyone else know about this? --76.214.41.70 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I believe that name for this album is actually "The Red Album". They did not put "The Red Album" on the cover as it was obvious. They did the same wih 1967 - 1970. If this is the case, the articles will need to be ajusted. Sco1996 | I will respond. 15:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are known familiarly as the Red and Blue albums, just like the White album. The official titles are 1963-1966 and 1967-1970. freshacconci talktalk 13:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All My Loving / I Want to Hold Your Hand

It's interesting how most Beatles songs on the 1962-1966, 1967-1970 and 1 greatest hits albums are in release or single release order. But for some reason I Want to Hold Your Hand is placed before All My Loving, yet All My Loving was recorded and released before I Want to Hold Your Hand. C.Syde (talk | contribs)

Well apparently, All My Loving was released as a single in the U.S. after I Want to Hold Your Hand, so that may explain why I Want to Hold Your Hand appeared on the compilation first. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "All My Loving" was not released as a single in the U.S. at all; it was a single in Canada which received enough importation and airplay to reach #45 on Billboard's U.S. chart. 'Chronology" (track ordering) could be based on the fact that it charted after "I Want to Hold Your Hand", as you hinted. 2601:545:8201:6290:D9DE:C0C4:52E2:410C (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1962–1966/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Green tickY All the start class criteria
  • Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
  • Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
  • Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
  • Red XN A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Lacks personnel list.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1962–1966. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1962–1966. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1962–1966. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Singular page for both albums?

I feel like having two separate articles for the Red and Blue albums is almost redundant, especially as they contain a lot of the same text. Lemonzingertea (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe track listing

After the recent announcement of the deluxe version of the red and blue albums, I felt it was suitable to add the deluxe track list to the Wikipedia page. Apparently it wasn't suitable as it did not fit the rules described in WP:ALTTRACKLISTING. The two rules described here are "when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response." While I can concede that the second requirement may not be fully met, the first absolutely is. The deluxe version has an entire vinyl record of bonus content which is not included on the original album, which I'd say is significant. The deluxe red album is also described in the page, matching the second condition. Under the sub-section devoted to the release, it says:

"On 26 October 2023, it was announced that the album, along with its counterpart, would be re-released on 10 November 2023, this time with an expanded track listing. Thirty out of the 38 songs on the album would receive a new stereo mix, the remaining eight using mixes from the Revolver: Special Edition set. While this version will be released on both vinyl and CD, the track listings on the two formats vary."

This I believe to be enough commentary to count, as it describes the announcement itself, the mixes used, and the formats of release. I suspect this rule may have been put in place to stop loads of different versions of single releases being listed (different remixes, b-sides etc.), but rules are rules and I can't argue with them. While this text is not present on the blue album page, it could be easily lifted over with some minor adjustments.

And finally, when it was removed, the other reason mentioned was to not "bloat the tracklisting section with something better covered in the body". Apart from the fact this isn't even in the rules, the byte size of a page shouldn't really matter. Secondly, I don't understand how it would be "better covered in the body", as in the case of the red album, it's 12 new tracks, and the only options I see for describing them in the body is just writing out the new tracks, like a track list, or just not mentioning them at all.

If the reason for their removal is because of the lack of description, I will be more than happy to add a thorough description to the page, if it hasn't already been done by someone else. Otherwise, I'd like proper reasoning for the removal.

Tedster41 (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission, the addition fails WP:ALTTRACKLISTING because it is not "the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response". I do not expect this requirement will ever be met; where the North American version of Rubber Soul and its different track listing became influential in itself, this new release is just a bunch of already remixed tracks added to an already existing compilation album. Better, I think, is that rather than bloating the track listing section – Wiki is not Discogs – it would be enough to write one sentence in the body that twelve tracks were added for the 2023 release. This would also follow guidance at WP:TRACKLISTING, which adds that "notable differences can be summarised in the prose in lieu of additional track lists". Tkbrett (✉) 11:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, how much do you think is "extensive"? The American pressing of Rubber Soul which you mentioned is only described in a small subsection at the bottom of the Songs chapter, only consisting of two paragraphs. It mainly discusses the mixes, as does the description here, and the changes made to the track list. If this warrants the US track list to be listed, surely the same would apply here. Possibly a review or two of how the mixes sound, which I'm sure they'll be plenty of upon release, and the section will be about as long as the Rubber Soul US release section. And plus, if we are saying "notable differences can be summarised in the prose in lieu of additional track lists", then a quick addition of two tracks and removal of four shouldn't really merit an entire additional track list, and yet there it is on the Rubber Soul page.
All I'm saying is, with a mention of the fact that twelve additional tracks were added along with some reviews, it qualifies by your apparent standard to be mentioned as a separate track list. Tedster41 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The changes to Rubber Soul and its impact on the album are discussed extensively in Beatles literature. This is unlikely to be true for the changes made to the Red and Blue Albums, which are only compilations after all. The changes can easily be covered in one or a few sentences in the body. Tkbrett (✉) 16:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are two rules here. It has to be significantly different, which it certainly is, and discussed in the article. No matter how "influential" the changes are, which isn't discussed at all in the Rubber Soul page, I think possibly with some reviews from when it releases it will qualify the two rules given. And plus, I would say it's reasonably significant event in the Beatles timeline, as the Red and Blue albums are arguably the most iconic and popular Beatles compilation, behind maybe 1. A deluxe edition, after literally 50 years, is quite something. Added with 'Now and Then' on the 1967-1970 album, I'd say it's a noticeable change. And again, technically this doesn't even matter. There's two rules; with a little work we'll fit both of them. Tedster41 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, a few reviews is not "extensive". Just because you want there to be enough commentary to warrant its inclusion does not mean that there actually will be. There is presently no significant commentary on the difference of the track listings of the Red and Blues Albums, and I seriously doubt there ever will be. Again, bloating the track listing section is unnecessary when this can easily be covered in a sentence or two in the body.
Oh, and despite what you say here, the changes to Rubber Soul are indeed discussed quite a bit over at that article – it quotes Marc Myers as saying that the American version "changed the direction of American rock" – clearly reflecting the fact that this is covered extensively in the surrounding literature. Tkbrett (✉) 17:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So how come a few reviews are "extensive" in the Rubber Soul page? In the section itself there's only two by a reviewer, and the one you mentioned is buried deep in the 'legacy' section. In the section discussing the North American release itself, all that's mentioned is some reviews (two, which I'm sure they'll be here with the 2023 mixes) and the mixes, which will also be discussed.
And as a reminder, there is a section in both the red and blue albums about the changing of mixes in the versions, which I have no doubt the new release will be included in, along with the original 1973 releases (UK and US), 1993 and 2010 re-releases, which didn't change anything about the track list at all. I'd say a table that large, which may have to be expanded for the bonus tracks, counts as pretty "extensive". Tedster41 (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a Rolling Stone review and interview with Giles Martin, who mixed the release, to the 2023 re-release section. Now, its about the same length as the 'North American release' section we've been comparing it to on the Rubber Soul page. This, combined with the changes in mix per version, how the re-release will chart in as many countries as it does, and the reviews that will come upon release, we're looking at a rather "extensive" discussion of the topic on the page.
And again, I believe there will be discussion over the new tracks. It's not "just a bunch of already remixed tracks", almost all of the tracks here have been remixed for the album. These mixes, as Martin says himself, seemed impossible as classic tracks like "She Loves You" or "Love Me Do" were so primitive a modern mix just wouldn't work. And yet, a new real stereo mix, the first ever of tracks like these, is due for a release. I'd imagine that would stir up some conversations on release, especially about whether or not the mixes are actually that good. Tedster41 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're still missing it, and it seems from your comments above that you did not even bother to look through the Rubber Soul page to see what I am talking about. The different track listing is discussed extensively in Beatles literature and is discussed at length in that article, which is why WP:ALTTRACKLISTING applies. With the Red and Blues albums, the altered track listing is not even a point of discussion, either in reviews or by you here. All you are talking about are the mixes. Why would altered mixes justify adding that to the track listing section? It does not. This is something that can be covered in the body. Tkbrett (✉) 17:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it's not just the mixes. While yes, those are significantly different and worth discussion, there are reviews of the topic as well. I've already added one and the release hasn't even happened yet. As I mentioned, these new versions of the classic Please Please Me and With the Beatles tracks are historic as they have only really been done in either fake stereo or just mono, which I'm sure will bring discussion. Again, Martin has said how monumental these new versions are and I'm sure members of the Beatles community will talk about it. And plus, how the re-release will chart will also be documented on the page.
And yes, I did read the Rubber Soul page, and the altered track list is only discussed in the 'North American format' section. Yes, the album did have a big influence on the US, but that has nothing to do with the track list. The influence wouldn't have changed if 'Drive My Car' was on it instead of 'I've Just Seen a Face', and yet its still allowed because it was just a different release of the album. Tedster41 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say it isn't about the mixes, but then go back to talking about them. The mixes are irrelevant to WP:ALTTRACKLISTING. Rubber Soul's North American track listing had a much different influence because of the different tracks – that is what the entire second paragraph of the North American format section is talking about! I saw just how much Beatles authors emphasize that when I was researching and writing "I've Just Seen a Face" – it comes up quite a bit in that article's Release section – that's why the Rubber Soul article justifies including the North American track listing. There is no such discussion in sources about the significance of the new track listing of the Red and Blue albums, and I seriously doubt there ever will be. That is why this article does not warrant including it. Rather than continually reiterate these points here, I am instead going to step away until new points are made, that way others may also contribute. Tkbrett (✉) 19:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go, I just want to remind you of that rule. We've been basing our points off of Rubber Soul for a while now so it's best to just go back to the source material. According to WP:ALTTRACKLISTING, the track list should be included if, and only if, "they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response." The example they gave, not how it was executed in Rubber Soul, was the information about recording, for example, the mixes, and critical response. We've already had one review on the new release which I've added. Technically, it already passes what the rules themselves say about the topic. It doesn't have to be covered over the entire article, like you seem to be claiming, but just information about the release and reviews on it. That's "extensive" according to the rules themselves. And, technically, we've already reached that point. Tedster41 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's an entire section of the article describing the 2023 remixes. As a reference for the album, should there not be a list of such tracks and which ones were the 2023 mixes, which tracks were added, etc. This is a major Beatles album and when people see a track listing on a CD or on streaming services they see additional tracks not in the track listing for the article. It is ridiculously stupid not to include them in this article. Kevin Crossman (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is presently one sentence paraphrasing a Rolling Stone review regarding the inclusion of new tracks. WP:ALTTRACKLISTING talks about needing a "significantly different" track listing and "extensive commentary", neither of which is the case here. Tkbrett (✉) 02:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could find them if you look, for instance [here. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the review is discussing the whole album, including the new tracks. In that Rolling Stone review, for example, they describe the new release as "have never thundered like this before", and that comment applies to the whole album, bonus tracks included.
And, in actuality, Martin mentions the new tracks in his comments too. He says, "I didn't think that we could do the work we've done on things like 'I Saw Her Standing There' or 'All My Loving' or 'Twist and Shout.'", two of those being new tracks.
Also, at this point, we're arguing about the tiniest point of wording in a one-sentence rule. I think we should get the person who wrote WP:ALTTRACKLISTING to clarify and try to resolve this, or at least get their opinion on the topic. I think everyone can agree this talk section has gone on for way too long for a bonus tracklist on a Beatles compilation. Tedster41 (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you folks aware that there is a whole article Abbey Road: 50th Anniversary Edition? Based on the above, you might want to nominate that for merge back to Abbey Road. As regards the red and blue albums, I think far more readers will expect to read the names of the extra tracks on the 2023 release than the color of the label in the 1976 release. My interpretation of WP:ALTTRACKLISTING is that these "can be summarised in the prose", something like this:
On 26 October 2023, it was announced that the red and blue albums would be re-released on 10 November 2023 with additional tracks, twelve in the case of 1962–1966, namely: "I Saw Her Standing There", "Twist and Shout", "This Boy", "Roll Over Beethoven", "You Really Got a Hold on Me", "You Can't Do That", "If I Needed Someone", "Taxman", "Got to Get You into My Life", "I'm Only Sleeping", "Here, There and Everywhere", and "Tomorrow Never Knows".
jnestorius(talk) 21:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the new tracks should absolutely be there, somewhere. Same thing for 1967-1970. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. Just listing them all out in the body seems counter-intuitive when the track listing section is right there. But yeah, I agree that readers will expect to see it instead of tiny changes made on re-releases. In fact, we've already seen it. Since I started this talk section, a few people, having not seen it, attempted to add the track listing back, meaning that people do expect some kind of acknowledgement of the new tracks. Tedster41 (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll throw my two cents in here --- rules or no rules --- I came here to see the new 2023 track additions and ALSO THE RUNNING ORDER with the additional tracks, and only got what I consider to be a substandard answer. I already know the original albums and their order by heart. I wanted to see what the NEW order was. 2601:150:100:63A0:DD77:B6F4:12A6:7066 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been about three weeks since this debate started, I'd like to lay down my arguments to try and bring this to a close somehow. I'm not backing down on my points, I just feel it's silly I've been arguing them for this long.

To start, I'm going to quote that very same rule that's been quoted time and time again here. According to WP:ALTTRACKLISTING, you can include track lists of "alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article — such as information about recording and critical response."

So, how does my argument fare against this rule? Well, let's first look at the actual page's section on the topic. Over 600 words, discussion on release date, mixes, and most prominently, reviews. The example given in WP:ALTTRACKLISTING is "information about recording and critical response." Information about recording is the mixes used, so discussing how most tracks had entirely new mixes from Giles Martin, and how those on Revolver, including the new Revolver tracks, use the 2022 Mix for that album. As for reviews, there are reviews from four different outlets and an interview with Giles Martin. And, this all makes it the largest body section in the article. That's pretty extensive if you ask me.

Another point I'd like to raise is that while there have been comparisons to Rubber Soul on how the rule should be used, this page is not Rubber Soul. That's a major studio album, this is a compilation made by EMI as a cash-grab. Rubber Soul is much longer than this, with a legacy section and everything. This page is much smaller, and should not be compared to Rubber Soul. Besides, something being "discussed extensively in Beatles literature" does not immediately classify it as passing this rule. If there is a point in the rules that says, "If it's discussed lots outside Wikipedia it's fine", please let me know, as you might have a different copy to mine.

One thing that's demonstrated throughout this section of the talk page, is people are expecting to see the track list. Just look at the reply above mine, someone literally coming to the page to check the track list, only to find it not there. Multiple people since this debate started have attempted to add it themselves, as they also believe that it should be here. People expect Wikipedia to have this information, so why doesn't it?

And as a reminder, this is one extra vinyl record. An extra 1,000 bytes to a page with nearly 46,000. What difference does it really make? The people want it, it's alright according to the rules, so why isn't it there? This is an update to arguably the most beloved Beatles compilation, and surely an update with such a large section describing it, a whole table of how well it charted across the globe, and even a note in the introduction, surely that would qualify to have a track list. But no. Apparently not. At this point, I think this has gone from a debate to a petty argument. The largest section on this page is discussing this new version, but apparently that's not enough to qualify for a track list. What more do you want? Tedster41 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I added the 2023 edition with a collapsed template, that way it does not bloat the section and make it unreadable. At present, there is still only one sentence in the article – the RS review – that discusses the different track listing. That is not extensive. Inexperienced editors add indiscriminate information to articles all the time; that is not an argument for adding it. I think it will make sense to return in a couple years and see if it is worth having the other track listing, as I doubt there will be any serious discussion of this release in Beatles lit. Tkbrett (✉) 13:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One final thing though, what should we do about 1967-1970? That page doesn't have any reviews on the new release, and overall has a much smaller section. We could just copy and paste the review section over, although I'm worried most of it discusses this release specifically. On the other hand, not having it on one page but having it on the other feels inconsistent. What do you think? Tedster41 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it, Tedster41; you can't win with his sort. After all, it's his train, isn't it, mister? 2601:545:8201:6290:C2D:992A:7585:A2E2 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2010 remastered version

This section says "EMI announced on 10 August 2010, that the album had been remastered for a second time and..." Having both "remastered" and "second time" seems redundant, or at least confusing. As far as the CDs, these are the second mastering for CD of the first remastering for CD, right? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Love Me Do"

The 2023 remix of "Love Me Do" sounds to me like the one with Ringo on drums, rather than the more common version.. Can anyone confirm this? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications in the USA of 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 albums are not coherent

Hello,

Here are the certifications of 1962-1966

in the United States (RIAA) : 15× Platinum 15,000,000

and

1967-1970

17× Platinum 8,500,000

Both albums were originally double albums published on the same day.

How the 1967-1970 US sales (8,500,000) can be lower than the 1962-1966 US sales 15,000,000 whereas the former was granted more RIAA certifications : 17 platinum versus 15 platinum ?

Something is clearly incoherent. Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1962%E2%80%931966