User talk:zmbro

Hey, I noticed both volumes of The McCartney Legacy aren't listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Resources in the "McCartney" section, do you think it should be added? (Yes I know you didn't create that page, but you and I use The McCartney Legacy a lot, so I was just wondering.)Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes absolutely, especially if other solo books are included. Both are very reliable and I'm looking forward to the rest of the series. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Me too, what do you think the next volume will cover? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm

Betting 1980 to 1989. The 80s were a pretty eventful decade for Paul (especially the early to mid 80s) so I imagine it will be a long book. I bet the 90s won't start til volume 4. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I noticed that you removed my edit of information on recording dates/takes of songs during the sessions for Living In The Material World. I read your explanation on the history page but I'm still a little fuzzy on the reasoning, so I'm respectfully asking for more clarification. You claimed it was "too much information" but I don't understand how information on recording dates and takes could be "too much" info for an article on an album--I would assume (maybe it's just me) that this is exactly the kind of information someone interested in learning the details of how an album was made would want (plus, I see that info in a number of other Wiki album pages). The LITMW page (and all its associated song pages) is chock-full of lengthy, highly detailed information on the album and its songs, so I don't quite see how this crosses the line into "too much".

You reference the Wiki Primary Sources page but I read it over and I don't see any problem there, either, since it says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" and that's exactly what I did--I provided pure factual information from the source, with no commentary or interpretation, that anyone who clicked on my citation source (the official Harrison page on the recording sessions, and I don't see what could be more authoritative than that) could easily verify. Finally, you state that user JG66 "has all of that"--I assume you mean his individual song pages, which contain further information on the recordings. But in checking those song pages, I do not see him put in the information I included on exact recording dates (he'll say "autumn of 1972" or "October of 1972" but that's as specific as he gets), nor number of takes. Now there are MANY Wiki music articles that give exact recording days that no-one seems to have any problem with, so I'm not sure why it's a problem to list recording dates here.

Since you seem to be a rather decorated, knowledgeable individual around these parts (congrats on getting to where you are!!), I'm assuming you've already thought about it and aren't going to budge on this, although I'd still ask if you could clarify the questions I ask above. But also, let me tell you the reason why I thought it necessary to put that info in--because for years I'd gone by the Wiki article on this album as my source for info, and that article is written in such a way that it leads one to think that the sessions started in October, and that the songs were then being recorded all through the sessions well into March '73. But when I saw the recording sessions page on Harrison's official site, I was flabbergasted to learn that all the basic tracks for the ten new songs were finished in the first two weeks of October, with the entire rest of the next five months dedicated to overdubs. I think that's really important information that should be added into the Wiki article, no? So if you thought my original edit was "too much" (although I still don't quite know why), can I offer instead this more generalized, simplified paragraph that still contains this important information:

The backing tracks for all eleven songs on the album were finished within the first two weeks of October, beginning on October 7 with "The Lord Loves The One" and ending on October 13 with "Who Can See It". Harrison added his vocal to the February 1971 backing of "Try Some, Buy Some" on the 24th with a final song, B-side "Miss O'Dell", recorded on October 27. In addition, brief jams on songs like "Mr. Tambourine Man" "Heartbreak Hotel", "At The Hop" and "Masterpiece" were attempted. The rest of the sessions through March 1973 would be dedicated to overdubs. (and then I'll add my citation to the official Harrison page for the LITMW recording sessions, which anyone can click to get the full details on the rest of the recording dates, the number of takes recorded, etc.)

Does that sound better? All I really want here, if the rest is 'too much' info, is for people to know that the backing tracks for all the songs were basically completed in those first two weeks, and I also think knowing what extra songs were jammed on during that month is enlightening, because it shows Harrison's predilection for 50s oldies and Bob Dylan. Please let me know, if you are still against restoring my full edit from before, if this new, streamlined edit can be added--and if not, if you could give the reason why not. You seem to know what you're doing, so I respect your judgment on these matters!

PS - my apologies for the longwindedness of this post--it's just the way I write. Mtopper73 (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mtopper73 Hey there! First off, thanks very much for bringing this up here and not starting an edit war. Secondly, I apologize for the deletion of the entire thing. I was concerned about the source, but upon further review it looks reliable. I reverted my edit and made some copyedits. When it comes to album pages, I generally feel mentioning the number of takes is a bit overkill and should be left for the individual articles instead. Besides, saying 51 takes of this song was recorded and leaving it at that leaves the question of, well which take was deemed best? Was it combined with different ones? Why were so many made? See what I mean. It opens more questions than answers. That's why I had said it felt like "too much". Another reason I cleared your edit was that you left a couple of sentences without references at the end, which is generally unacceptable (especially when an article is a GA or FA). I assume the source would be the session website, but not everyone will.

More generally, I've always kept an eye on large additions to pages on my watchlist, so when I see a 2,000+ byte edit made by an account without a user page I get skeptical. This is not personal towards you, this is just how it is; you never know when "newer" or IP accounts are acting in good faith. But you very much are :-). In regards to Material World, I think your simplified paragraph is definitely better. I have to ask though: did you write it yourself? or use an LLM? Wikipedia has very strict policies regarding AI text so I have to be sure :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:26, 20 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, thanks for getting back to me! I understand I do not have my own user page, but I have been editing articles on Wiki for about four years now. My homepage tells me I've done 766 edits, although I'd say only about 100 have been substantial (almost all 60s and 70s song/album articles). I guess it's about time I filled out my user page, huh? I didn't realize it would have an effect like it did on you, when you saw I didn't have one, in terms of determining the good faith of the edit. I'll keep that in mind.

I get your point about the take numbers, and if the simplified paragraph looks better to you, I'll be happy to replace my original edit (and thanks for restoring it) with that. And no, I never ever use AI to create anything on Wiki and I'm actually overjoyed to hear they have a thing against AI-created edits/articles! Just give me a day or two to make the next edit with the simplified paragraph. Thanks again for discussing this with me, I really appreciate it and I learned some things along the way! Mtopper73 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mtopper73 That's also on me for not checking your edit count. I apologize again. Having a user page isn't really that big a deal; tons of experienced editors don't care to have them. Thanks for being truthful. With AI so rampant nowadays, you never know. Take your time! I glad we could get the situation resolved. Again, I'm sorry for my poor judgment. :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, I was wondering if you could help me--in reading over the Wiki article on "Helter Skelter" today I noticed an assertion about the song's origins having stemmed from a Pete Townshend quote definitely needs to be questioned. I wrote about it on the song's talk page, here:

Talk:Helter Skelter (song)#Townshend/Who origin

I want to make an edit to the article pointing out the big discrepancy between Paul's two quotes on the origin of the song, but I know that any new info added to Beatles articles is often heavily questioned and often retracted. Since you seem to know what to do in these instances, my question is should I simply make the article edit now and see if it's challenged, or wait until someone responds on the Talk page for the song? Mtopper73 (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I replied over on the talk page :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, someone told me you might be knowledgeable on Beatles books, so I was wondering if you could tell me if a couple books published by Paul Du Noyer are reliable, those being Conversations with McCartney and We All Shine on: The Stories Behind Every John Lennon Song: 1970-1980. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Newtatoryd222 I'm not knowledgeable about those specific books but Du Noyer is a well-respected journalist and has worked with respected publications like NME and Q. Based on that alone, I'd say those books can be considered reliable (especially the first one, which features convos with McCartney himself). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on an article for "Bip Bop" and I saw that on Discogs, "Bip Bop" was issued as a single in Turkey but I need some help finding a reliable and verifiable source to back that up, do you know where I might be able to find a source to back up that claimed Discogs single release? here's the Discogs link in case you want it: https://www.discogs.com/release/8112887-Wings-Wild-Life-Bip-Bop-Love-Is-Strange Newtatoryd222 (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

That will likely be really tough. If there's a book that lists out the complete discography for Mac/post-Beatles stuff (meaning non US/UK stuff), that'd be ideal. But I'm not aware of a book like that. I'm sure it exists (I mean, it's Paul McCartney), but that's where I'd start. Still, I typically don't mention specific country-only singles in articles because they don't feel particularly notable, unless they charted really well (but usually they don't). If Discogs is the only source you can find for it, don't wory about it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, do you think showbiz411.com is reliable? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

For the future, if you have a question about sources (especially for websites), you can check out WP:RSMUSIC or WP:NOTRSMUSIC for a breakdown. If the source isn't on there, I would bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums or search for it in the search box there.

But looking at the source myself, I would say it varies. Their about page has an editor-in-chief (usually a good sign), Roger Friedman, who has a long history with celebrity journalism. His articles have also appeared in reliable publications such as "Vogue, The New York Times, The New York Daily News, Redbook, US Weekly, Premiere, the Washington Post, and many other publications." I would personally ask WP:ALBUMS about it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, zmbro. Do correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you have access to Rock's Backpages; if so, I humbly ask you to send me a copy of this article: "Smith, Alan (20 September 1969). "Abbey Road Album Track-by-Track". NME." This would help me work on the Abbey Road songs. And since I never found the occasion to tell you, I'll belatedly congratulate you on the Wild Life article and thank you for your service to the Beatles project. DannyRogers800 (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Email sent! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just what I needed. Thank you as always, zmbro. DannyRogers800 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, zmbro! As I may have said before, I owe you and Newtatoryd222 so many thanks for pumping new blood into the Beatles project. Really, you've been active there for quite a while. I have a suggestion. Before the summer passes (as I won't remain as active once school opens again), I propose that some of us on the project come together to work on a large Beatles collaboration. We may improve a very big article to good/featured article status, such as that on an album or a historical event (like the breakup or the British invasion), or try to create a good topic: in this case, one on Abbey Road is our best chance. These are just my suggestions, but let's make it a big project, and preferably one about a patch of the band that isn't covered very well on Wikipedia. What do you think? I asked Newtatoryd222 but they said they prefer working, which I understand. I don't know if Tkbrett would like to chime in. DannyRogers800 (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now that I think about it, I might want to help. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Although I do want you guys to help me create and improve Paul McCartney/Wings articles, including articles i've created. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can only do so much on specifically Beatles stuff, as I don't have too many Beatles-specific books. It would be nice in general to get all of Paul's solo stuff in better shape (especially Tug of War); not necessarily FA or even GA, but just better. I mean, look at Driving Rain for example. On Wiki, I'm also preoccupied with a Metallica project atm, and irl I'm heavily invested in Red Dead Redemption 2, which is why I haven't been editing much the past week. I could help in some ways on a Beatles project, but I honestly doubt anything major. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I saw that you had access to Rock's Backpages from DannyRoger800's message asking you for the Abbey Road track-by-track NME article, and I saw on Rock's Backpages that there is a review of The Essential Dolly Parton from Record Collector, and I created the article for the compilation, so i was wondering if there was a way you could send me the Record Collector article here on Wikipedia. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You could Email it to me. if you want to. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Another article I would like from Rock's Backpages is an Uncut review for The Essential Bruce Springsteen. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

One more I would like is the Uncut review of The Essential Mary Chapin Carpenter. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

All sent! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

What were the ratings of each of those compilations if they were rated by those publications? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

They didn't have star ratings listed. If they do it's usually in the title. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, I figured it was worth a shot. I've been editing Wikipedia articles off and on since 2003-ish. You? PJtP (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You thought it was "worth a shot" to add an unsourced and biased opinion to a Wikipedia article? I'm sorry to be brash, but seriously? For an editor of 23 years, even on and off, I expected more. I've been a consistent editor for 10 years. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, do you think it's a good idea to nominate "Dear Friend" for a good class article promotion? Seeing as you did help the article get to its status. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure it could pass GAN in its current state. I personally don't like nominating articles unless I know it meets the scope requirements and I don't believe there's an underlying issue. In that article's case, there may be some more info to add from sources I just don't own, but I'm sure it could pass currently. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to interfere, but I will open a review the minute "Dear Friend" is nominated. DannyRogers800 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nominated :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was wondering if you were going to participate in the GAN of "Dear Friend"?, seeing as you did nominate it. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Um... yes? There isn't a time limit unless specified by the reviewer. It's a little rude to ask that, considering it was grabbed for review only a day ago. If I wasn't planning on participating why would I have nominated it in the first place? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

You also didn't even give me a chance to reply over there; you've just taken over the review yourself. If you were going to do that the whole time, you should've requested to nominate it yourself. Not cool man. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to help, sorry. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I realize now it was stupid to think you weren't going to help, since you were likely busy and couldn't. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello zmbro, how's it going? There are some images of sheet music covers of Beatles songs, such as File:Polythene Pam sheet music.PNG, composed solely of elements in the public domain. The cover I mentioned, for example, has the Abbey Road image (which is uncopyrighted) and some text and basic shapes (I suppose there is some text overlaying the image, but it shouldn't matter). Should such images be moved to the Commons? DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure tbh. I'd ask someone over at Commons who's more knowledgeable on the subject! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've placed a question at the help desk. It looks like they should make the Commons because the sleeve for "I Want to Hold Your Hand" has already been moved. DannyRogers800 (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Glass Onion sheet music cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zmbro,

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RfC) at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC, which you may be interested in because in the past year, you have nominated or reviewed more than one good article nomination. This message has also been sent to all subscribers to the Good Article Gazette. The RfC contains many proposals (33 at the time of writing), which are split into the following categories: nominators, reviewers, reviews, volunteer roles, reviewing initiatives, and others. However, you are more than welcome to add any proposals of your own that you wish to put to the community.

By the end of September, all the proposals will have been closed by an uninvolved editor, either as a consensus for one of the options or with no consensus. At this point, editors will be invited again to develop these proposals into coherent policy and implement them.

Thank you for your contributions to the good articles project, and I look forward to your input! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 16:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Dear Friend (Wings song) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Every Little Thing (Beatles song) sheet music cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just wanted to apologize again for not asking if I could help and just going into the "Dear Friend" GAN review improvements without your permission, but I was wondering if you think that if I were to nominate the article I created for "Hey Diddle", an article of which I am the only contributor to, do you think it'd pass for a GA in its current state? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, how do I nominate an article for GA? Do I have to do so through its talk page or...? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for apologizing. You can follow the GA instructions at WP:GANI. Personally, no, I don't think so. You have solid basic info, but in terms of scope, it's missing compositional info from tons of sources that could be quite helpful (i.e. Perasi, Perone, possibly Jackson, etc.). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't have access to Perasi's books, so you may have to add information from those books to the article. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, could you email me the NME review of Wild Life from Rock's Backpages? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

For the future, head over to The Wikipedia Library and gain access to that. I'm pretty sure that's how I have access to Rock's Backpages. It also gives you access to Newspapers.com and ProQuest, both useful for finding sources. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks. Again, sorry about what happened yesterday. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, how long did you choose to have access to them for? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

For the Library itself, once you surpass like 500 edits you have access forever. With Newspapers.com, you have to request access every six months, I believe. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:39, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's telling me I have to register for access to Newspapers.com. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

That makes sense. If you're unsure how, post a question on the talk page. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do I have to surpass 500 edits on the main Wikipedia site? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Library is an online library open to active Wikipedia editors and a resource exchange. It provides access to many reliable sources and can be accessed by any registered editor with at least 500 edits, 10 edits made in the last month, and six months of activity. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey, whenever I nominate "Wild Life" for GA, would you be interested in reviewing it? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello once again, zmbro! Newtatoryd has nominated "Wild Life" for a good article nomination, upon my recommendation. He's done a good job at it, I think. Do you know anyone who can review the article before it moulds at the good article backlog? Of course, none of us can since we've both contributed significantly to it. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

On 22 August 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dear Friend (Wings song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Dear Friend" was Paul McCartney's attempt at reconciliation with John Lennon following the break-up of the Beatles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dear Friend (Paul McCartney song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Dear Friend (Wings song)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Dear Friend (Wings song) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey zmbro! I just have a small question about the Songwriter line in the infoboxes of Beatles songs. I know it's standard practice to leave the official listing on Lennon–McCartney, but ought we to clarify who really wrote the song? Say, for "The Long and Winding Road", Lennon had nothing to do with the song's composition and yet the infobox presents him as a cowriter. Perhaps we can settle this little issue. And how's the summer been for you? DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey DannyRogers800! I've found it's best to leave it as the official credit, with an explanation in the opening paragraph. When I was expanding List of songs recorded by the Beatles many years ago, I had originally intended to do exactly as you said: Specify the actual writer(s) rather than who's credited. But they led to a bunch of compilations that User:JG66 mentioned in a long post (i.e. George Harrison contributing greatly to "Octopus's Garden" or Donovan supposedly contributing a line or two to a White Album song (can't remember which now). Basically, it ended up being much easier to just leave the credits as they appear officially.

I know not all articles do it this way. For example, Queen's "These Are the Days of Our Lives" was credited to "Queen" whereas Roger Taylor actually wrote the song, so the infobox states "Queen (Roger Taylor)". So I guess it goes on a case-by-case basis. But if we were to do as you say and specify the credit in the infobox, I feel like that might case more problems than intended. We'd also have to change every infobox where that applies to (and that'd be a lot). Out of curiosity, I looked at "Give Peace a Chance" and it states: "John Lennon (originally credited to Lennon–McCartney)". I think that's fine since the credit was later amended (see also "Imagine" and "Bitter Sweet Symphony").

Anyways, I'm well! Been doing a lot of gaming but starting to make my way back to Wiki for a bit (I tend to go in cycles lol). On a whim, I made Pipes of Peace about 20k bytes larger xD. How about yourself? Seems we've all been busy with other irl stuff. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think, if we are to judge each case on its own, mentioning McCartney alone on "The Long and Winding Road" should spark no objections whatsoever, since no one else had the slightest involvement with writing it. But it can be left as Lennon–McCartney; I don't mind so much.

And yes, you're right to guess that I've been doing other stuff. Mostly writing essays, preparing quizzes, lounging about, the usual. I had been on here for an uninterrupted month, so I stepped outside for a while. I don't know when I'll return, but it won't be too long because there are good article reviews for Beatles songs that I'd like to start and close. And I'll help with your Pipes of Peace effort, if you'd like. And maybe finish "Polythene Pam". Anyway, I expect we'll talk again soon! DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I added that clarification needed tag, but looking at the article history, it looks like it was me who accidentally removed that 2020 date in the first place in a prior edit, somehow. Sorry about that. Thanks for fixing! Popcornfud (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh that's funny haha. Glad we got it fixed! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 24 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, how're you doing? I've read through and tinkered with your "Maybe I'm Amazed", and I like it. There were some minute problems with prose and style that should be fixed now (although you should probably take a look for yourself), and some other tidbits that still need fixing. All in all, it's ready for an easy good article review. I'll open the review the minute you nominate it. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Maybe I'm Amazed has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello zmbro, and well done for the "Maybe I'm Amazed" article. That was the easiest review I've ever subjected anyone to. If you're interested, I can review your Pipes of Peace next.... I had promised this, if my memory serves me right. But that may very well be the last article of yours I review until I leave the site for a while. Well, maybe I can look through "Wonderful Christmastime" too. Also, I enlarged "Too Many People" in the past few days, mostly from details in the article on "How Do You Sleep?", so that's a fair candidate for your next good article project. DannyRogers800 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well thank you! I suppose Pipes could be ready for GAN, although I had intended to wait for Kozinn & Sinclair's next book to publish first since I know that will be helpful. Ideally that'd be this year or next... McCartney II also needs some better sources in some places and probably has too many quotes. If we can't get to another review then it's no big deal. I'll still be here when you return! :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:41, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, and I think that's a commendable reason to keep the article waiting. I can still do "Wonderful Christmastime" or some other article, now that I'm here. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you think that one's ready we can go for it! I was always disappointed that article was never probably expanded on, given it's surely one of his most viewed articles (being a Christmas song you know).

– zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:49, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll read the article and add some bits of information here and there, if any more can be found. But I won't edit it too much, or else I won't be eligible to start the review. At present, it's in quite good shape.

By the way, I do like "Wonderful Christmastime". I may have started seven wars with that sentence, but anyway. DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Haha I like it too xD. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Back in '06, the article actually said that Japan tried to ban the song because it had caused over a hundred people to kill themselves after hearing it on the radio, to "scramble for the fish knife". And when it was brought up on the talk page, some people thought it could be real and rummaged through the web to find citations. That's fucking hilarious. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Gotta love late-2000s Wikipedia lol. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:44, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

DannyRogers800 While you're gone, my plan is to get through Tug of War and maybe do "Mull of Kintyre" and "Goodnight Tonight"; I'm thinking that will help expand a little bit of London Town; at this point, getting all the Wings albums to GA is pretty doable (Red Rose Speedway and Band on the Run are pretty close now). I've already started on the other album articles so that's good. But once GTA 6 comes on the 19th, well Wiki progress may slow down a bit... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:24, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh swell, I love those songs. Good on you for taking all this time to mend and sculpt the Wings articles..... well, I'm guessing you enjoy nearly every minute of it. If only Macca would know about any of this. DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I know some celebrities have responded to their Wiki pages but I doubt Paul has ever been asked. I listened to a Beatles podcast years ago where the hosts actually mentioned how every single George Harrison article was written very in-depth (ofc all done by User:JG66), which made me feel somewhat good that our work is appreciated by fans. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:49, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Really? Which podcast was it? DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I believe it was Screw It, We're Just Gonna Talk About the Beatles, although I have no idea which episode. I had to dig through my podcast history lol. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:20, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's something. JG deserves the eyes and respect of every Beatles fan. DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yeah he does. And it makes me happy seeing all the other Beatles-related articles that have been expanded/brought to GA/FA in recent years. When I was writing all about Bowie, most Beatles stuff kinda died off except for one or two editors so it has been refreshing seeing more editors who care come back to it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:31, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure, and I was lucky enough to catch the recent wave of interest in the Beatles just as it started to form. Gavetheman, Carnival of Lights and Newtatoryd (I know you have reservations about this guy) have done some marvellous work these past few months, and Crystal Drawers contributed a good article of his own. And then there's you, of course. DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

After JG66 left the site, it was mainly just Tkbrett and I think one other editor doing everything themselves. But they contributed great articles no one would have thought of, like In His Own Write and Beatle Country, so it worked out well (although Tk doesn't edit as much as he used to anymore). I tend to go in spurts – I'll edit extensively for like 1-2 months straight then switch to other hobbies like gaming and vice versa. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised that In His Own Write never became a featured article. Well, he also did "I've Just Seen a Face", which is one of the project's finest works.

And it seems like your spurt will crash on the 19th. Yeah, I remember my mates talking about the teaser back in the fall of 2023. So I'll try to finish "Wonderful Christmastime" by then. DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

It very well may, haha. WE shall see. Take your time man! There's no rush. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:58, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Wonderful Christmastime is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill sheet music cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Wonderful Christmastime has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask why you removed the source that I provided? Who claims that chartmasters is not reliable source? you anybody else? The figure from 2022 does not have any source at all, how is that acceptable? ~2026-59390-37 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! A list of unreliable music sources can be found at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Per a 2018 Discussion, it was decided that chartmasters.org is unreliable because it is a self-published website that gives no viable basis for claims. The 2022 figure is sourced in the commercial performance section by this source. Per MOS:LEAD, anything that is sourced in the body does not have to have a reference behind it in the lead section (especially for features articles, which Be Here Now is. (This is also noted in a hidden note in the lead). Unfortunately, there has not been any officially updated sales numbers for the album in many years. It is rather annoying and has caused quite a bit of edit wars in the past few years. I hope this helped! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi do you know where we can get up to date amounts? it is crazy there has been no update in nearly 5 years ~2026-59390-37 (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately not that I'm aware of. I've searched again and again every time it comes up and have never found anything. I felt lucky enough to find the 2022 source (which if we're being honest is the same 2016 figure from Billboard). One of these days it will be updated, but hopefully sooner than later. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:02, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've started reading your article closely and tinkering with a small few fixes here and there. Perhaps it's best if I begin listing some suggestions here.... or, alternatively, you can put the page up for a good article nomination and we can discuss them there. Needless to say, this won't have any trouble passing the green badge test. But I'll have to be excessively fussy and officious if you want the golden star. DannyRogers800 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I shall open up a GAN and we can do it there. I've already know there are some things that can be improved on. Don't hold back! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

You know I won't! DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your good article nomination of the article Ram (album) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DannyRogers800 -- DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply