This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This template is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum The Beatles This Beatles-related template is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles To-do list: For WikiProject The Beatles A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles. Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood. Verify : Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

You see them as US studio albums on wiki, but come on, the first is a pure compilation album. The second a studio album.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're all compilations in my opinion but we have a lot of American users who like to say that they are proper studio albums. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By 'the second a studio album' i meant 'the second an interview album'. I see how the American users believe they are proper studio albums, as that is how they were released in America, but 'The Early Beatles' was and still is a compilation of songs from the Beatles' first few UK albums that did not make any American albums prior. --77.99.231.37 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'The Early Beatles' is an abridged edition of the UK 'Please Please Me'; it contains 11 of the 14 songs from PPM. It contains no songs that are different to those released on PPM, and it contains no songs which weren't on PPM. It is not a compilation. Radiopathy •talk• 17:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Beatles was released in 1965 and is not there first or second album. What is the definition of a studio album? According to studio album, The Early Beatles is not a studio album, since it is just a re-release of some songs from a previous studio album. The Beatles did not record it as an album nor did they give permission for its release. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Beatles is a compilation album. It is a re-release of Vee-Jay's 1964 Introducing... The Beatles release (which itself is an abridged version of Please Please Me). It was issued because Introducing... The Beatles was discontinued (caused by Capitol themselfs, who released the Early Beatles); and it thus meant 12 tracks were no longer in the US although they were before. Capitol easily obtained the rights for the songs on it and re-released the album as The Early Beatles. It is a compilation album essentially (but weither America like it or not, all their studio albums were compilations. Sorry!). The definition for a studio album, in response to Mclay1, is an album containing new material, something with The Early Beatles is not.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that American users wouldn't think to go looking for the American albums in this template. They should stay in the albums template. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their studio album releases, yes, but The Early Beatles? and the Beatles' Story? that's what this whole thing is about. I've also noticed a few other things are missing from the template - the Singles Collection (1976), EP Collection (1992) and their 1992 cd reissues - are all missing (and all box sets)--77.99.231.37 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CD re-issues can in no be interpreted as compilations. The box sets can but I've never heard of the 1992 re-issues. The singles and EP box sets do exist however and should be included somewhere in one of these templates. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The box sets should be here, yes; but, again, the American albums stay in the albums template, and that includes The Beatles' Story and The Early Beatles. It doesn't matter whether they are compilations or not; American users would not think to look for those in this template, so they are to be left alone. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked for the box sets you mentioned and did not find articles on them, so they'll have to be created before they can go on here. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, wait? ALL American albums should be in the reguar template whilst with the UK, only the studio ones are allowed? Besides, the Tony Sherdian stuff released in America aren't in the main template. It just seems silly that both of the said albums fall into 'US Studio albums'. Anyway, the CD box sets of the singles and EP collections do exsist. They were very limietd though. I find it quite surprising the singles box and EP box aren't mentioned anywhere. They do exsist and are official.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all. Only the ones that were released in North America as alternatives to the ones in the UK. Also, nobody said the EP and singles box sets do not exist. I said they do exist and Democraticmacguitarist said articles on them do not exist. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no American would think to look for those articles in this template. They stay in the albums template. They are considered studio albums in the US. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you think i'm being disruptive or whatever. I wasn't trying to shout out by saying they do exsist. I know no-one said they didn't. I have wondered why they aren't articles on Wikipedia! Look under the 'Release history' in Magical Mystery Tour, which is the first peice of evidence towards the CD EP box. Just trying to work it out.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Democraticmacguitarist, it doesn't matter what Americans think are studio albums. The Beatles are English and Apple Corps is English and they control the album releases now, Capitol has no say in it. Just because it is your national opinion that the North American (not just US) albums should be in the album template, doesn't mean that they should. McLerristarr | Mclay1 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that; I said they should stay in the albums template, and not move here. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've fixed my comment. I forgot what template this was. My point is that just because Americans would think of looking the album template for the American albums, doesn't mean that that's what should be done. I don't think people look in templates anyway. Since every template is on every page, that shouldn't make any difference. McLerristarr | Mclay1 13:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to have people find what they are looking for in the first template they look in, and I think it is safe to say that all Americans would look in the albums template first. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the American beatles albums are compilation albums - and i'm not saying that because i'm English. They are, but were released into the American market as studio albums. They've been labeled as studio albums and the like (except for The Early Beatles - sorry i'm not going back into that again); for their entire time on wikipedia so i wouldn't go changing them to 'Compilation albums' now - Too many people will disagree with you and revert your edits. By the way, i like your new look Mclay 1 - the red name and blue talk page link. Signed and timed --77.99.231.37 (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might seem petty, but we ought to do something about the size of the gray boxes in this template - they take up way to much space. Do we really have to include all the record lables? CentraCross (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is spelled 'labels'.

2) I don't really see the point of having the record labels either. It seems unnecessary to me, on here and the singles template. Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, i've been thinking about how the original subject on this talkpage ended and let's just forget The Early Beatles and create a section for interview albums. There's the already discussed The Beatles' Story along with The Beatles Tapes from the David Wigg Interviews and Hear the Beatles Tell All. What are the other opinions here?--77.99.231.37 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles' Story is mostly narration. Also, Live at the BBC contains some interviews between the music. I don't think this is a necessary section unless other discographies use it. McLerristarr / Mclay1 08:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe it should be "Spoken word". Whilst Live at the BBC does indeed, it's mostly music unlike the three spoken word albums mentioned. Signed and timed, --77.99.231.37 (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Spoken word" sounds good and, with 3 albums, seems warranted. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was the British Rarities album that inspired the creation of the U.S. album of that name, the U.S. album mostly departed from the "non-album track" theme of the British, so that the U.S. album consisted primarily of "alternative versions". It has some "non-album tracks", of course; indeed, some of its tracks fit both categories — songs that appeared on albums, but had alternative versions on singles, presented therein. (Although a non-album alternative isn't even fully the same as a true "non-album track". And in the U.S. market at that time, as well as the present-day "core collection", "Penny Lane" and "I Am the Walrus" aren't even considered "non-album tracks" anyway.) In the end, more of its content qualifies as "alternative versions" than as "non-album tracks" (with, as I said, some overlap).

I might also argue the case that, while The Beatles Box (1980) was technically issued in a box, it doesn't really fit the general mold of "boxed sets". In general, "boxed sets" are made up of groupings of albums otherwise available individually, with maybe one or two "special" discs added to the set; whereas The Beatles Box consists solely of eight entirely newly-compiled discs, never before issued. What it really is is a very large, 8-disc compilation album itself, comprising "hits", or "best-of, expanded", with a few "alternative versions" along the way (all of which, by the way, were previously issued); so that, in the end, the category that fits it best is "Hits", not "Boxed sets". 108.1.68.112 (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT THIS GUY SAID!! I would especially like to amplify his first paragraph; "alternative versions" is nearly the defining characteristic of the US Rarities, much more so than "non-album tracks"! (I'll concede that including "Penny Lane" in the point he makes is perhaps dubious, but that's minor.) Let's get the US Rarities moved to "alternative versions" where it belongs!! 70.17.165.126 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be safe to put "(w/ Tony Sheridan)" under the section title of "Bert Kaempfert recordings"? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda redundant, as it's the same (just different name). Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 17:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it redundant? Bert Kaempfert and Tony Sheridan are two different people, and the average person wouldn't be able to pick up one from the other. The reason I bring this up is because of a recent edit by "Antonio Aw" that was undone because it put "(w/ Tony Sheridan)" after every album in the section. Why just once on the section name? Democraticmacguitarist (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mis-read. I suppose that'll be fine. Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 15:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]