Template talk:The Beatles/Archive 2

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

Apple Corps

Any way we could squeeze in a link to the above? Shortened to Apple would be fine. --kingboyk 20:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


I've added Yoko Ono to this template. She did have a big (negative) influence on the Beatles and was the only other person to do vocals in the band, so i think she belongs. You can dlete it if you don't agree. EamonnPKeane 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree, sorry to say. If we add Yoko then what about Billy Preston (the only person to share the performing credit on a Beatles record), the other Beatles' wives, the Maharashi, etc etc. Yoko wasn't a Beatle, she was John's forthright girlfriend and then wife and in my opinion she doesn't belong on the template. --kingboyk 17:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually the maharishi is on the template. EamonnPKeane 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, so he is! (red face). How about I replace him with Apple Corps? :-)
Anyway, Yoko in that section would be easier to stomach, but in the section for members of the group - no!
--kingboyk 19:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think what troubled me was the placement of Yoko, not her inclusion. She did indeed have an important role in the Beatles' story, way more important than the recently added Norman Smith. Since we don't get much Talk action in these parts, I might unilaterally replace Classic rock era (a modern concept, 1960s would be better) with Yoko Ono and invite retroactive comments. It was I, after all, who deleted Yoko in the first place. --kingboyk 13:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Albums and Films

I added their official studio albums and films. If anyone feels they don't belong here, feel free to discuss it and/or remove if necessary, but I think it's nice to be able to access their albums from the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sdoroudi (talkcontribs) 16:14, 15 April 2006.

I think we have to be careful not to let the template get too big and cluttered, and this has made it grow quite a bit. So I am not sure I agree. Perhaps just a link to the discography and filmography would be better. (there is also the problem of what is "official"... UK releases? US releases? Both?) ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think in terms of what to include/exclude he's got it pretty much spot on (except perhaps for the exclusion of 1). However, I too am concerned about the sheer bulk of the template now. At the very least, let's make it a bit wider (now that the font size has been reduced); alternatively we must also consider removing the new listings. --kingboyk 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, let's make it wider, that sounds good to me. But with a discography already linked, why do we need the individual albums?? I'm not clear on that. We SHOULD link a filmography (I am not sure if one is in there or not) and then why would we need the individual films? ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The filmography is on the discography page. I decided to include the albums because it's more convenient when someone is reading about the beatles than first going through the Discography page. Sdoroudi 23:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and made it wider so that every category (except for the albums) takes up only one line. I think it looks nicer now and isn't necessarily cluttered (though it's close). Sdoroudi 23:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The template omits the US releases, but since these albums all have articles, I think they should be included. Perhaps this template should be divided into two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


A template to go on all the articles for each single would be nice. Since they couldn't all fit into this one without bloating it incredibly, perhaps a new template with just the singles on it, which would replace this one just on those articles (and both could appear on The Beatles main page)). Anyone else think this is a good idea? I'd be willing to try to make it if so. -Goldom 莨夊ゥア 謚慕ィソ 01:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll move the thread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles where it's more likely to be seen. --kingboyk 09:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Let It Be... Naked

Shouldn't there be a link to it in the template somewhere? Even thebeatles.com (the official site) calls it a The Beatles album... --02:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)~~

slash job

What's with all the cuts that just occured? Why did all those items get removed? It was marked as a "revert" of some sort, but there was no vandalism that I could see, so I'd like someone to explain a good reason for all that stuff getting removed, or I'm going to restore all of it. - Ugliness Man 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We have over 500 articles we cannot list all of them. It says plainly enough on the template that if a change isn't justified it might be reverted. --kingboyk 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC) PS The main reason is that the new changes took the bottom row onto a second line, at my screen res at least. Your addition in particular is not something that needs to be at the bottom of every one of hundreds of articles. It was a low budget, very forgetable movie about and not by The Beatles. More important than, say, Yoko Ono (who isn't listed)? Of course not. --kingboyk 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, if it was just my Backbeat addition getting removed, I wouldn't have bothered saying anything, I was just concerned that many items were being removed, most of which I thought were valid. But if this sort of slash job is standard procedure with templates covering such a broad topic, I won't bother saying any more about it. - Ugliness Man 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Kingboyk, you cut a lot of stuff in the bottom line of the template because "The main reason is that the new changes took the bottom row onto a second line, at my screen res at least." Is it all based at your screen res? At my screen res, there's still a second line. I originally added the Discography because I found it coumbersome to have to re-enter it as a search item when I wanted more info. Why not have it in the template if it's a nice shortcut to the recordings not covered otherwise in the template? I also added the non-breaking spaces so that second-line break would be before a full item, not partway through. You took those away too, so now at my screen res "British Invasion" is cut in two. I VOTE FOR RESTORATION. Signinstranger 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Doesn't the anthology may be include in the studio albums list? Includes new material and was produced by the 3 alive beatles,who even overdubed two Lennon songs.


why do we need these in this box? Why not a link to a compilations category and leave it at that? ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the guy who created the list of Beatles compilations. The reason I created the list was to provide a convenient way to access the compilation albums. 16:38, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

It's nice work you've done. The problem though is that the template is getting towards the size of the article. I think it's too big. What do other editors think? --kingboyk 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just thought of a new section called "Apple authorised compilations" with 1962-1966, 1967-1970, Past Masters, Volume One, Past Masters, Volume Two, Live at the BBC, 1 (album), Let It Be... Naked, The Capitol Albums, Volume 1, The Capitol Albums, Volume 2 and Love (The Beatles album) How's that idea? I've intentionally skipped the Anthology volumes as they are linked elsewhere in the template. Steelbeard1 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a section for Notable Compilations or Other Noteworthy Releases for the more obvious albums containing exclusive material and important greatest hits collections (eg. Oldies, Red/Blue and 1). Also, material such as the Hamburg recordings should be noted with a single release (the Lingasong album, and the 1964 polydor album). If we stick to a set list of obvious titles (not some obscure "some loser sings The Beatles") then we should be fine.paulisdead 18:48, 15 Janurary 2007 (UTC)

I've added a list of compilations back in because I believe (as other people do) that there is a need for one for quick access. However, keeping in mind with the complaints with the last list, I’ve titled it Other Noteworthy Compilations so that it doesn’t get inundated with every K-Tel release under the sun. Albums like the Anthology series, Let It Be…Naked, Love, Hollywood Bowl and From Then To You have been added because of their “exclusive” content. Albums like the Lingasong Hamburg and Beatles First, which even though they are not EMI releases have been included because of it’s historical importance for being the first time this material appeared on LP. I’ve included notable greatest albums like Oldies, Hey Jude, Red/Blue and 1 as they are considered by fans to be cannon compilation albums.

Other albums I could have added are EMI's Rock and Roll Music, Love Songs, Reel Music and 20 Greatest Hits and Polydors The Beatles Tapes but on this first attempt I wanted to keep the list as condense as possible, but others may disagree and think they deserve to be there.

I also didn't included Box Sets because I thought something like that would warrant it's own category.

Anyway, I thought I'd post something just to see what people thought of it. But I feel that we do need a Compilation section like other bands do - but with a few basic guidelines so the templete dosen't become the size of an artical again--paulisdead 20:14, 15 Janurary 2007 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in the "Noteworthy Complilations" section is too vague. It would also require endless arguments to maintain and add albums to. Just64helpin 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
How's this suggestion? A heading called "Catalogue completion compilations" which lists only Past Masters, Volume One and Past Masters, Volume Two? Steelbeard1 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"Catalogue completion compilations" suggests that the template section is a guide for collectors, which is a no-no on WP. Just64helpin 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Just64helpin, It was asked elsewhere in this page. How do we deal with EMI Beatle tracks, which include the BIG BIG Beatle hits such as "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "Hey Jude" which are NOT included in the original studio albums? Steelbeard1 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thought of a solution. The category name of "Past Masters CD compilations" will limit the choices to only the two Past Masters volumes. Steelbeard1 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the 1962-1966 (The Red Album), 1967-1970 (The Blue Album) compilations (and possibly 1 (album)) should be included. They are the compilations that I would recommend to non-Beatles fans. Andrew Eng 23:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If it can't be decided on what format the "compilations" and "Post Break Up" albums should be then the next best thing is for the Compilations to have it's own separate box like the singles do. Paulisdead 09:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Someone is insisting on inserting the LOVE compilation in this template. Let's just stick to the complete discography link. I'm also requesting semi-protection for this template. Steelbeard1 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The LOVE show, not the album, was inserted and the discography link was kept. That should solve the problem. Steelbeard1 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm leaving the warning in avoid future instances like this. Just64helpin 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding Anthology, LOVE, Let It Be...Naked, etc

Would it be alright to add a new section to (the admittedly large) infobox to allow for post-breakup non-compilation albums (Anthology, Live at BBC, maybe even Live at the Hollywood Bowl)? I think that LOVE and Naked deserve their places in the box. Emperornortonx 17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There are already topics on this above. Just64helpin 19:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Past Masters be on here?

I see there's the list of studio albums. A lot of the material on the two past masters CDs, all of which was released during the 1960s, are some of their biggest songs. "Hey Jude," "I Want to Hold Your Hand," just to name two, are most easily found there. In other words, to get all of The Beatles' recorded output during their heyday (not counting Anthology, etc), you have to get the 13 studio albums and pick these two compilation discs up. That being the case, I think Past Masters should be included on the template, even if other complitation discs are barred.

They certainly shouldn't in the "Official studio albums" section. Just64helpin 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree they shouldn't be in album section. But they should definitely be on the template. So let's figure out a place to put it.
The template already contains a link to the Discography, which has all of the compilations and such. (BTW, please sign your posts.) Just64helpin 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
but that doesn't change the fact that to get their complete official output from the 1960s you need to pick up those two compliations. that being the case, I think past masters need to be on there, even though other compilations are not. -- random ip address

Magical Mystery Tour

The consensus is that Magical Mystery Tour is an official studio album and has been since the global CD issue in 1987. Most of the tracks are derived from the double EP and even EMI believed that the album was a better package. The American import made the British album charts and continued sales in the UK as an American import led to EMI releasing the LP in the UK. Steelbeard1 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the UK date from 1987 (CD release) to 1976 when the album was first release in the UK on LP. paulisdead 18:41, 15 Janurary 2007.

Just an observation, but shouldn't the UK date state 1976 and not 1967? Also, shouldn't the U.S. date be 1967 and 1976? A simple reversing of the two would certainly suffice for cited release dates. Cbing01 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
So noted and corrected. Steelbeard1 03:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Compilations template

Since it is obvious that people both want templete access to compilations and post break up albums without crowding the main templete box, I've designed a templete which is just for Compilations and Other Releases. This is in the same vain as the singles templete that is placed on pages for the songs that have appeared on Beatles singles. The templete is devided into catagories titled: The Bert Kaempfert Recordings, Studio 1962-1970, Live Albums, Anthology Series and Box Sets. I believe that this is a pretty clear guidline for those wanting to added other releases.

I can't see a box like this getting bigger than the singles template as unlike other artists of that vintage, the Beatles catalogue has been pretty condense as far as compilations are concerned.

Also I've left most of the original Beatles templetes still there, but I don't think they are needed, considering that the singles don't have them and the main templete doesn't include these albums anyway. (bar the Past Master CD's)

Template:The Beatles compilations
Template talk:The Beatles compilations

Paulisdead 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Mal Evans

Does Mal Evans warrant inclusion in the 'Management' section of the template? It seems slightly harsh to restrict him to 'Featured Articles'. I'd like to change it, but I'd appreciate some feedback from others before doing so. Liamshaw 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Jeff Lynne and Carnival of Light

Jeff Lynne may be related to the Beatles, but not primarily and his work on the Threetle stuff isn't enough to justify his inclusion on the template, IMO.

Carnival of Light is an obscure reference for this level of navigation. Most Beatle fans won't know what it is and don't need to. Someone searching for it will find it without using the navbox. The navbox should be for more mainstream links.

John Cardinal 21:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Another user put a comment on the Talk:Jeff Lynne page saying that Lynne's removal was for "reaons unknown" and that Lynne deserved mention because he worked on the last-ever Beatle stuff at their request and he deserved mention more than Phil Spector because Lynne didn't produce controversial work like Let It Be "which the band hated."
First, the band didn't hate Let It Be. John and George thought he did a good job sith sub-par material and both had Spector produce subsequent work including All Things Must Pass, Concert for Bangladesh, "Instant Karma", John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, and more. Those are solo works, not Beatle works but they indicate John and George's opinion of Spector. McCartney didn't like the strings on "The Long and Winding Road", etc., but his main issue was the lack of management control over the material so that he could force changes to that material before it was released.
Second, a number of other people produced the Beatles in some fashion, and they aren't listed. The nav bar is not intended to be an exhaustive list.
Lastly, your "ludicrous" comment in the edit summary is not appreciated. The edit wasn't farcical or absurd.
I am not going to revert the edit even though I still disagree with the inclusion of Lynne. I'll leave this issue for others.
John Cardinal 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you think Jeff is "justified" in being on the template, he produced the last two singles which WERE released under the band name "The Beatles" and to not include him in the production staff is inadequate. --Soakologist 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

An "other people" section?

I'm considering that there should be a section for other people related to the Beatles. I'm moving Yoko and others to this new section. Here's a preview:

John LennonPaul McCartneyGeorge HarrisonRingo Starr
Pete BestStuart Sutcliffe
Allan Williams • Brian Epstein • Allen Klein • Lee Eastman • Neil Aspinall • Mal Evans • Apple Records
George Martin • Geoff Emerick • Norman Smith • Phil Spector • Jeff Lynne • Alan Parsons • Abbey Road Studios
Other related people
Yoko OnoBilly PrestonTony SheridanChas NewbyAndy WhiteJimmy NicolAstrid KirchherrKlaus Voormann
Official studio albums
Please Please Me (1963) • With the Beatles (1963) • A Hard Day's Night (1964) • Beatles for Sale (1964) • Help! (1965) • Rubber Soul (1965) • Revolver (1966) • Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967) • Magical Mystery Tour (U.S.-1967/UK-1976) • The Beatles (The White Album) (1968) • Yellow Submarine (1969) • Abbey Road (1969) • Let It Be (1970)
Past Masters compilations
Past Masters, Volume One (1988) • Past Masters, Volume Two (1988)
A Hard Day's Night (1964) • Help! (1965) • Magical Mystery Tour (1967) • Yellow Submarine (1968) • Let It Be (1970)
Related articles
Line-upsBootlegsDiscographyLove (Cirque du Soleil)Lennon/McCartneyAnthologyInfluenceThe QuarrymenLondonBeatlemaniaFifth BeatlePaul is deadBritish InvasionApple CorpsNorthern Songs

I will not officially edit the template without your approvals. Is this any good?

Keep as is: I don't think we need another section. A new section adds two lines to the height of the template and it's already too tall. John Cardinal 07:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I've been working on another approach to the navbox for a while. I wasn't quite satisfied yet, but I figured I might as well bring it up given the topic arose. I don't think the current production navbox works that well; the lists are easy for the browser to wrap, but finding things is hard. You can see an alternative on my User page. Keep discussion here where it's more visible. John Cardinal 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad idea: I think this might be useful, as the Beatles had tons of people that were along with them for the ride. you could also put people who played on songs with them, such as Eric Clapton on "Something" and Billy Preston on "Get Back." Also, if size is something you're worried about, look at the Grateful Dead Template, it was recently changed to be completely collapsible. I'm not anywhere near an html master, but if someone wants to do this for this page, it would definitely solve the size problem presented. Trobert 17:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
Re: Grateful Dead Template. Having the sections collapse minimizes the visual clutter, but reduces usability for quick navigation. I am not against doing something similar, but some consideration must be given to the use of the navbox. I've assumed it was for quick navigation to the most referenced pages. The Grateful Dead template includes links to every song (mostly red links) as well as a lot of other stuff. It expands to ~40K of HTML. Contrast that with the current Beatle template where it expands to about 7,500 characters. In my opinion, the Beatle template already has too many items that aren't hot topics. Perhaps that's netierh here not there. If people want a collapsed but expandable template similar to the Grateful Dead example, I am fascile enough with this stuff to do it. John Cardinal 21:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Drastic change?

I spent some time trying to make a better version of this nav box template and then gave up for various reasons. Lately I've been wondering if anyone actually uses it. I know I don't, which is part of the reason why I gave up on trying to make a better one. Now, after a little thought, I think I'd like the nav box better if it was drastically smaller, seven links only, as follows:

- One for The Beatles (1)

- One each for the fab four (2-5)

- One to the The Beatles discography (6)

- One to a "portal page" that provides categorized links to all Beatle-related articles, neatly categorized. (7)

The current Portal:The Beatles page should probably be the destination for the last link. That page needs updating but it seems like the appropriate Wikipedia location for this purpose.

Why am I proposing such a drastic change?

  1. In general, I am not a fan of "nav boxes". They are at the bottom of article pages, which is appropriate, but in that "below the fold" position they probably don't get noticed much. (Contrast with Above the fold) They are usually chock-full of a lot of poorly-organized content in a small font. That's a recipe for readers to ignore them entirely. The current {{The Beatles}} template is a great example: some sections are very cluttered and hard to read. I don't think it's possible to improve it dramatically without removing most of the content.
  2. It's hard to define where to draw the line on which links to include and which links to exclude. That leads to head-scratching outcomes like "Chas Newby" and "Beatle boots" in the template but not "A Day in the Life" or any other songs. (Yes, I am aware ADITL and other songs are in {{The Beatles singles}} and that it's impractical to list every Beatle song in a nav box.) I say we move the bar way up, and keep only the most important articles in the nav box. Everything else that's there now—and more—would be on the portal page.
  3. A smaller template with a bare minimum of links could use a larger font for each item and wouldn't need as many headers or other low-content-providing, high-space-consuming text. While it will still be out-of-sight, out-of-mind at the bottom of the page, each item will get more attention when it does get noticed.
  4. The portal page could be updated to do a better job than a nav box of providing a starting point to access any of the hundreds of Beatle-related articles. It could have a table of contents. Links that are hard to restrict to a single section could be in multiple sections. Lists could be linear, rather than inline and wrapped, to make them easier to read/scan.
  5. A portal page that provides well-organized lists of important Beatle articles (and other resources) would be a good browser bookmark for any editor or reader who is interested in the band.

Many other artist-related projects have nav boxes and they are all similar to this template. Who wants to be bold and try to determine a different—and better—approach?

P.S. If there are other, equally-bold suggestions, please describe them. The current nav box needs new clothes!

P.P.S. If you advocate keeping the present nav box, please answer this question honestly: How often do you use the current nav box: (A) Frequently, (B) Sometimes, (C) Rarely, (D) Never.

John Cardinal 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


  • Agree with you that nav templates have got too big, and support trying something new. It's wiki; if the public don't like the new version, we can always roll back! --kingboyk 10:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It will be easy to change the template, but a bit harder to get the portal page ready. I'll experiment there first, and if I think it's working out, I'll change the template... and then wait for a revert! <g> John Cardinal 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nav box? (C) Rarely. andreasegde 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem with the size of the template as it is. The Beatles are a large important group and the template should reflect that. When people don't want to see it, they can use the hide button. --Macduff 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you use it? If so, how often (A, B, C, D, from above)? John Cardinal 01:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • (D) Never. Too much like hard work. andreasegde 06:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision: portal sub-page

Earlier, I suggested using the Portal:The Beatles page as the destination for one of the few links in a modified Beatles nav box. I have now read Wikipedia:Portal, Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines, other portal-related articles, and I have browsed a few featured portals. All of that has changed my opinion: I don't think using the Portal:The Beatles page as the destination is a good idea.

The top-line summary of a portal page is that it should be similar to the Wikipedia Main Page, but focused on a single topic. All of the featured portals I visited use that approach. If we use the Portal:The Beatles page to organize and categorize Beatle-related articles, that portal will be dramatically different from all other portals and any reader who visits it and expects it to mimic the others will be confused.

My revised suggestion is to use a subpage in the Portal: namespace such as Portal:The Beatles/Navigation and leave the main Portal:The Beatles page for the usual purpose. I'll create the first version there. I hope to spend some time on this task this week.

P.S. There was not 100% concensus for what I suggested, but I think the navigation page will be useful in its own right, so I'll create it and we can discuss the nav box change later.

John Cardinal 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm adding a Tribute section to see what it look like. These are specifically chosen tributes for a few reasons: 1) They are licensed by Apple Corp. so clearly have a relationship with the exception of Beatlemania. Apple Corp. shut down Beatlemania legally, so that establishes its own relationhip. 2) They are wiki notable. 3) If added to the "Related Article" section, that section gets unwieldy, but I believe that Apple approved tributes are at least as related as several article in the "Related articles" section. Frog47 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Does that movie really need to be in the template? Unless I hear a good reason why, I don't think so. Otherwise, you'd have to put other Beatles-inspired films like I Am Sam or documentaries like The U.S. vs. John Lennon in that template.

This film has nothing to do with any of The Beatles except that it uses Beatle music so it does not belong on this list. Other Beatle inspired movies with no Beatle either involved in it or involved in its storyline include I Wanna Hold Your Hand (film). Biopix such as Backbeat (film) are also not on this list because it is not remotely accurate for inclusion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Navbox generic?!?

Can't say I like "Navbox generic" much. The labels on the left are too prominent, but also too far from what they describe. OK, that's enough being nice. I think it looks awful and functionally is worse than it was. blech. John Cardinal 00:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I just upgraded it to Template:Navbox and it looks better but IMO it looked best with Template:Navbox musical artist, like Template:Paul McCartney, Template:John Lennon, Template:George Harrison. —TigerK 69 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Now it has the look of Template:Navbox musical artist with the benefits of Template:Navbox, such as groups. —TigerK 69 18:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I reverted that change (before seeing this). Having only the current item be formatted using bold black text makes it much easier to spot that item in the template. That is very useful in a navigation template, IMO. --PEJL 18:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
True, but (aside from the aesthetic factor) now it's hard to tell which of the group names are links or not. There are 2 of them in this template. —TigerK 69 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I've made them underlined. --PEJL 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, on the other hand those links aren't all that useful. The link on "Official studio albums" just duplicates the link to the discography that is already in the related articles section, and is somewhat randomly placed (since the discography also covers compilations). The other link is just link to a category. Given that, I'm reverting the underlining, for visual consistency. We could consider removing these links completely. --PEJL 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No One's Gonna Change Our World

Shouldn't No One's Gonna Change Our World be included? After all, the version of Across the Universe on this album differs significantly from the one on Let It Be. Spiby 18:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a various artists album and those albums should not be included. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not? IMO it is a significant album. Spiby 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)