Talk:Beatles

Beatles
This is a dictionary after all, bands, even "notable" ones like the Beatles, simply don't belong here. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Tempted to agree, although if only one band belongs in a dictionary it's probably the Beatles. (Of course regardless we can have Beatlesque and Beatlemania.) The etymology is interesting too. Equinox ◑ 19:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * However, what about the word Beatle? That's not the name of a band, but is widely used to refer to any one of the band. Compare Pringle (not a trademarked brand, like Pringles, but widely used to refer to a unit of their snacks). Equinox ◑ 19:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 19:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We could do something like and retain the Wikipedia link. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Equinox and Mglovesfun, when two members of the band perform together they are referred to as "Beatles" (as in a Beatle, and another Beatle). bd2412 T 22:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Similarly done for other bands as well, e.g. Beach Boys. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - "all words in all languages". (I can find you citations if you want) SemperBlotto (talk) 06:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Isn't this what WT:BRAND is about? There are lots of use of phrases like "the new Beatles" meaning a band expected to metaphorically conquer the world. That seems to fit the examples at Criteria for inclusion/Brand names.Smurrayinchester (talk)


 * But Beatles isn't a brand name. -- Liliana • 21:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. According to this article the trade mark is owned by Apple Corps, a company formed by The Beatles. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consider:
 * 2004, Elliot J. Huntley, Mystical one: George Harrison : after the break-up of the Beatles, p. 235:
 * When George and Eric arrived in Japan at the New Tokyo International Airport on November 28 they were mobbed like Beatles.
 * 2000, The Beatles Anthology, p. 160:
 * We were going to all these shops and buying little uniforms for ourselves. That's also why we looked like Beatles,- beside the haircut, we were all looking the same.
 * Notice, "like Beatles", not "like The Beatles"; the references appear to be to plurals of Beatle. If two people go out dressed as Lennon and McCartney, they are two short of being dressed as the Beatles, but are clearly dressed as Beatles. bd2412 T 16:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Smurrayinchester so if someone says 'the next Wayne Rooney' you think we should have an entry for Wayne Rooney, do you? We are supposed to be a complement to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia a complement to us, where entries with no linguistic information are at Wikipedia only. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * People are a little different, but I'd say that, for instance, the existence of "Bend it like Beckham" is a point in favour of including Beckham. The point I was trying to make is that there is lexical information tied up in the word Beatles ("unprecedented, world famous band"), just as there is in Porsche ("luxury sports car"). Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. The existence of the singular form "Beatle" and derived terms like "Beatlemania" does strike me as a solid argument in favour of inclusion. While I agree that Wiktionary isn't an encylopedia, and should serve to complement Wikipedia, I also think there are cases where understanding X is critical to understanding the meaning and etymology of Y. Beatles could potentially be seen as serving to improve the understandability of entries like Beatle, Beatlesque, etc., thereby helping to make Wiktionary function as a self-contained resource. On the other hand, I understand the slippery slope argument: that the attestability of things like "Radioheadesque" and "Spice Girl" could open the door for entries on the relevant musical groups. Perhaps "Beatles" could be appendicized somewhere? Astral (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Kept. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)