Talk:The Beatles

I believe we should find a way to change the picture. These ones aren't particularly flattering images of them, and I think it would be worthwhile to try to find a picture of them in which they all look good. I know that copyright issues with many of the good images of them will persist, but I think it is worth it to try to find a picture without these issues. Tul10616 (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This article has a lot of eyes on it, so if there were better images that could be used they likely would have already been found. But what exactly do you mean they aren't flattering? We don't select images to flatter the subject. We try to represent the subject realistically with images of good photographic quality, and the images do that as well as can be expected given the constraints of copyright. The issue of images has been discussed several times, with no sentiment to make any changes. For the latest, scroll up a few posts on this talk page. But if you think you have found better images that are available without copyright, by all means post them on this talk page so we can express our opinions. Sundayclose (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see previous discussions of this. To be clear, by flattering, I mean that cropped candid images of the four of them (sourced from the same image) probably aren't the best to use on a Wikipedia page that has a lot of eyes on it.

As for recommendations, I would suggest this image:

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beatles_ad_1965_just_the_beatles_crop.jpg Tul10616 (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

My vote on that image is a definite no. The photographic quality is worse, and it's really no better presentation of them than what's already in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. Tul10616 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Here are two images I think would work for the infobox. I have a slight preference for the black and white photo due to the increased resolution and less busy background. In my opinion, they do the same job as the current image but better, since the Beatles don't have people behind them and are facing the camera. Miklogfeather (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose both. The photographic quality is inferior to the current image, and it does not portray them any better. Sundayclose (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The black and white looks equal if not better in terms of quality to me. It's sharper and more visually distinguished, and it doesn't have the same smudging or damage seen around Lennon's hair. Even if it wasn't, the fact that it's not a collage, doesn't feature other people behind the Beatles, and has, in my opinion, preferable facial expressions for every Beatle from consistent angles, puts it above the current for me. Miklogfeather (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it is equal photographic quality. If you look at the metadata for the images, the current image is much higher resolution than the image above. Higher resolution means sharper image. I'm not sure what you mean by "smudging or damage seen around Lennon's hair". There is no "smudge" in the photograph itself. His hair may not be perfectly combed, but our purpose isn't to make Lennon's hair look perfect. As for collage or "consistent angles", I don't think those are as important as photographic quality. Let's see what others think. Sundayclose (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I dislike the colour photo. The Beatles rarely wore tuxedos, and the photo is grainy. The black and white photo is quite good, and shows the band as an entity, whereas the infobox photo is just four individuals cobbled together. WWGB (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The colour photo is poor quality. I'd go with the B&W one. Sharp. uncluttered, and shows all four faces well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm in no way trying to sway opinions, but before we get too far in this discussion I have a question about the scourge of Wikipedia: public domain. I am woefully ignorant, but my understanding is that in the USA copyright usually lasts 95 years from the date of publication. I would appreciate a more informed opinion. The B&W above was taken in Sweden, where copyright expires after 70 years. From what I've read an image must be freely available in both the source country and the USA to be published freely in the USA. Sundayclose (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm, sad I didn't get into this conversation earlier. Since I have been arguing that the Beatles lead image needs to be changed to a different image for a long time, I have several options for photos:

• 
  A
• B
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D
• 
  E
• 
  F
• 
  G
• H
  H
• I
  I
• J
  J
• K
  K
• 
  L

I have gathered a bunch of Beatles photos, good or bad, and I have put them here. If any of you want to do any or have more, come in the replies. Hopefully if we look at newspapers, something I've tried to do before on newspapers.com and something @Michael0986 could help with, we can find more images, but most here are not the best. Which do you guys prefer Wcamp9 (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know English copyright too well but I'd hope we could get this image. I once accidentally uploaded the image once thinking it was under U.S. copyright because I forgot where the Beatles were before 1964 Wcamp9 (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I personally prefer F Wcamp9 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I like D as a good example of the mid-career Beatles. By the way, I also like the current photos which document a triumphant moment. Jusdafax (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

In all honesty I haven't looked for many Beatles photos on Newspapers.com. If it's an obscure musician or movie actor, no problem, but The Beatles are almost too famous. I'll check it out though and see what I can find. The collage image is almost synonymous with this page now, but really, the page deserves better. The image doesn't even have to be a particularly strong image, ie, look at The Who page. Of the images you have up, I think C grabs me the most, shame it isn't such good quality. Michael0986 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, good luck with what you find. You're pretty good at finding photos in newspapers and I usually like to go on https://tineye.com/ to reverse image whatever I find and see if there is a higher quality version Wcamp9 (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I think A, the cropped group shot, is preferable to the collage currently used in the article. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree that it’s a good shot. Beatles first visit to America in NYC, all together. Excellent! Jusdafax (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, I have concerns about copyright. Of all of the images shown, the only images that don't fall within the 95 year copyright of the USA are A, D, E, G, and L. The copyright laws of the USA apply because Wikipedia is officially located in the USA. I welcome expert opinions on copyright, but I don't see the point in going through the process of selecting an image if it can't be used. Wikipedia is very serious about copyright violation because of the legal ramifications. If we select one that is not freely available, it will be removed and we're back to square one As I've said earlier in this discussion, this article has a lot of eyes on it. If there were better images that are free to use, they probably would have already been found. I have requested help at WT:Non-free content. There's no harm in continuing this discussion, but the current image should not be replaced with any image that is protected by copyright until we get a more expert opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm responding based on the request at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Expert opinion on image copyright needed. As I understand it, the question is how to evaluate the copyright status of the images created outside the U.S. (so B, C, F, H, I, J, and K).

The U.S. copyright status of these images will depend on whether they were under copyright in the U.S. and whether they were eligible for copyright restoration under the URAA. An overview of the possible conditions is available at c:Commons:Hirtle chart. If the images were first published in both the U.S. and in another country (within 30 days), then the URAA has no impact and the U.S. status depends only on whether the U.S. publication followed the requirements around copyright notice/registration/renewal. If it was not published in the U.S. within 30 days of being published abroad, the copyright may have been restored.

For Japan and Sweden, the URAA restoration date is January 1, 1996, meaning that works had to be under copyright in those countries on that date to have their copyrights restored. The Japanese images were published after 1946, which means that their 50-year copyright term was still in effect in 1996 and they were likely eligible for copyright restoration under the URAA. The Swedish image (F) looks fine, and the life-plus-70-year term doesn't apply here. Its Swedish copyright would have expired before 1996 because Sweden was one of a few countries that established shorter terms for photographic images that weren't deemed artistic in nature. Since it's ineligible for URAA restoration, it's unlikely to have copyright protection in the U.S. unless the same photo was simultaneously published in the U.S. and went through all the copyright formalities.

If there are additional questions around these images or the U.S. ones, please let me know! hinnk (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong) we can use A, D, E, F, G, or L. Of those, A is the best in terms of photographic quality and, in my opinion, a better representation of the Beatles. It doesn't matter to me whether the image is used as a whole or (as it is currently) split into a collage. Sundayclose (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@999real has found a bunch of good images of the Beatles from different sites which are in public domain and has taken the high quality original source from AP

• M
  M
• N
  N
• O
  O
• P (can be cropped)
  P (can be cropped)

My personal new favorite is N Wcamp9 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Wcamp9: I'm sure you meant no harm, but you confusionly gave several images the same label. I changed the labels to clear it up. Even if an image can't be used, it's confusing to give two images the same label. You might wish to modify your preference accordingly. Sundayclose (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

yea i was really tired that night, sorry. it was accidental Wcamp9 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@999real has uploaded another image of the Beatles that I personally can guarantee will become the lead. It is of the Beatles in 1963, published by American Beatles distributor Capitol Records as a publicity photo in 1964

• 
  Really high quality pic of the Beatles

Wcamp9 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sundayclose @AndyTheGrump @Michael0986 @Hinnk @Seltaeb Eht @Jusdafax @WWGB @Miklogfeather @Tul10616 Wcamp9 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

That image is under copyright by Capitol Records. It can be used in an article about the song I Want to Hold Your Hand to show the record sleeve, which is quite common in articles about singles or albums. But it can't be used in multiple articles when free images are available, such as The Beatles. Uploading it again and claiming that it is a publicity photo with no copyright notice is simply not true. I have requested speedy deletion for this particular upload at Commons. Just because there are copyrighted images all over the internet does not mean we can use them on Wikipedia. Everyone, please read WP:NFC before uploading an image and suggesting here that it can be used. Sundayclose (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Just because it is a famous image doesn't mean Capitol Records took care to keep copyright. Please see c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Beatles_1963_publicity_photo.jpg  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   08:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Copyright is not determined by how "famous" and image is. It only has to have a copyright notice one time, not every time it is republished by a foreign website that uses it illegally. Read the fair use information at File:03 iwantoholdyourhand.jpg. This image is under copyright. It cannot be used here. It will be removed if it is placed in the article. I mean no offense, but this ignorance of how copyright works is creating a lot of unnecessary confusion here. Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violation because the legal consequences are severe. If this image is put in the article, I will remove it and discuss at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They are not "foreign websites using it illegaly" they are listings of the publicity photos that Capitol Records distributed and according to the Copyright Act 1909 "..notice shall be affixed to each copy thereof published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor". I also see no copyright notice at all on the album itself which would be the first publication, neither the cover/sleeve nor the record. It was also published in 1963, works published before 1964 had to have the copyright renewed sometime in the 28th year, I found no relevant renewals.

There are countless numbers of images being used with wrong fair use rationale that is not relevant, here it even claims the copyright is owned by Apple.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   13:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Inadequate fair use for other images is no excuse for this image. Not from a foreign website??? The sources listed are all foreign except for Discogs and the New York Post. Discogs is selling the record in a sleeve with the image. If you own the record or the sleeve, you can post the image in order to sell it; that doesn't mean the image on the sleeve is not under copyright. The image at the New York Post indicates that it is from Getty Images. Getty Images licenses copyrighted images, meaning that they pay to use a copyrighted image. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly here. I've made my point very clear. This image is under copyright. If it is used in the article I will remove it as copyright violation and discuss at WP:ANI. So I advise everyone to select another image as your favorite. There is a reason we are having difficulty finding images for this article: most quality images are under copyright, including this one. Sundayclose (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• You didn't address any of the points on the actual reasons it is not copyrighted. Can you show that the sleeve had a copyright notice and that the copyright was renewed?
• Getty Images commits copyfraud on countless number of images, such as photographs that were published before 1964 by ACME Newspictures, International News Photos and United Press International that did not have their copyright renewed. This is not just me saying this, it's the Library of Congress who states ACME, INP and UPI did not renew copyrights on photos.

 ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If Getty is fraudulently using a copyrighted image, that doesn't mean this image is not under copyright. In fact, it wouldn't be fraud if it wasn't under copyright. Again, I'm not endlessly repeating myself. I've made my points very clear. I'm finished on this topic unless others comment. Sundayclose (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you didn't even read the first line of the copyfraud article: A copyfraud is a false copyright claim by an individual or institution with respect to content that is in the public domain.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If it is proven to not be copyrighted should we make it the lede Wcamp9 (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump @Michael0986 @Hinnk @Seltaeb Eht @Jusdafax @WWGB @Miklogfeather @Tul10616 what do you guys think Wcamp9 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. If it is useable, which I think it seems to be, this photo would be the most ideal image for the infobox to represent the band as it is the most well known of these photos, having been published on such a successful single. If it's found to be useable, I'll upload a version with some colour adjustments, particularly to alleviate the dark patches in the background. Miklogfeather (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Late reply! This photo was taken by Dezo Hoffmann for the New Record Mirror magazine. It first appeared in the June 22, 1963 issue of it (see page 3 of this document). Not sure what copyright implications it would have though. VirreFriberg (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I really like N and O. I'm not sure how these would do under copyright laws, though. Tul10616 (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I prefer not to use an image in the infobox that promotes smoking. In the second batch, I prefer N. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• 
  My edit to the image's light levels and background

Now that this image has been kept following the deletion request, how would we feel about implementing it? The only objection I've seen is User:WWGB's above that it promotes smoking, to which I say Wikipedia is not censored. They smoked. People still smoke. I don't see a cigarette as a good enough reason to dismiss the image. I've made my adjustments to remove the dark patches in the background and match the levels better to the I Want to Hold Your Hand single, which is what the picture is known from. I'm all for replacing the current image with this, especially as most of the alternative options are gone.

@999real @Sundayclose @AndyTheGrump @Michael0986 @Hinnk @Seltaeb Eht @Jusdafax @WWGB @Tul10616 @Wcamp9 Miklogfeather (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I would really like to implement this image. 2600:4040:7773:1800:89A5:274E:1D1A:A65E (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

yes, we should make this the image. I would be extremely happy to do so Wcamp9 (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It seems pointless to me to try to select a new photo until we have sorted out the copyright issues more definitively. Possibly we should ask somewhere (Village Pump, Commons?) for help from an outsider with image copyright expertise to take a look? Once we have this settled, we could maybe have an RfC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's pointless to select a photo with copyright issues pending a decision. However, I don't see the point is seeking opinions about copyright anywhere except from a Commons administrator. If Commons determines that there is copyvio, other opinions are pointless. We cannot place the image in the article until we get a definitive decision about its copyright status. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't have to make a quick decision, especially when there are important legal issue involved. Let's all take breath and wait for a decision. Sundayclose (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party, but in the event that that that publicity photo is removed for being a copyright violation, how about this? It's in the public domain because all Associated Press photos before 1964 are in the public domain. If not, I would suggest the same JFK Airport photo we have, but not cut to their faces (option A in the above list). In my opinion, the context of what they are doing (waving at the crowd) makes them look less stupid. Ladtrack (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Ladtrack, the first image you linked is clearly not public domain. No, AP photos before 1964 are not automatically public domain. The requirements to license its use are glaringly obvious on the page you link. Did you happen to notice the fees charged to license it???? Look again at the Commons page and notice the words "did not include a copyright notice". Simply stating that any image is public domain does not make it public domain. Sundayclose (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it probably isn't, but not for that reason, they are usually in the public domain when they were published before 1964, which has to be shown, according to the Library of Congress AP did not renew copyright for photographs, so the copyright notice is not relevant although they were practically always published in many newspapers with no copyright notice at all anyway.

However they also must have been first published or within 30 days in the United States. This is an image AP got from PA Images which is a UK agency so it is quite possible it was not  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, for that reason. There is no evidence that the image "did not include a copyright notice". That alone is sufficient reason that we cannot use it. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you read??  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Consider this a friendly reminder to watch your tone. Sundayclose (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you read the template {{PD-US-not_renewed}} and explain why a copyright notice would matter for works where the copyright was not renewed?  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Provide your evidence that copyright was not renewed. And yes I can read and hope there will be no need for an official warning about personal attacks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

That is not what I asked. Here is the Library of Congress page where they state that AP did not renew copyright on photographs. To be clear I think the image suggested by Ladtrack is not in the public domain and should not be uploaded, for the reasons I stated above.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   19:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

"The Library’s legal office has advised the Division that photographs published with proper copyright notices 95 years ago or less up until 1963 may be protected if the copyright was properly renewed, while works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office." Now, I'm finished pandering to endless repetition, so this is my last comment unless someone else raises an actual issue that hasn't been addressed. Sundayclose (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

That is the standard disclaimer they put everwhere. "In an attempt to determine if AP/Wide World registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed."  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   19:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I know there is a lack of urgrency but if that other image does not pass can we just resort to using this one? Or shall we wait til the debate is over to use that one Wcamp9 (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

We can use any image which gets a consensus and is not disputed regarding possible copyright. Just don't unilaterally decide to add an image again without consensus as you did earlier. You might want to brush up on WP:CON. Sundayclose (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

NEED BETTER IMAGE THAT WHAT IS PRESENT--NEED TO REPLACE WITH IMAGE "A": Though we needed to replace the old image with something in the public domain, I do not think the current placement image is the right choice (regardless of resolution or relative similarity in time period--with the Beatles a few months can make a big difference). I think that it is important we select a lead image that best represents the Beatles' larger impact and significance in their time (the 1960s) and in history. I do not think that 1963 image of the Beatles in collarless jackets fulfills that necessity. The Beatles themselves never particularly liked the collarless suits, and that particular look, while fine in its particular moment of their career, represents more a passing moment than a timeless image.

Whereas the proposed image A above (assuming it is public domain) is much more fitting. I captures the Beatles coming to America on their first visit when they made their greatest cultural impact. Gone are the silly collarless jackets. Hair a little bit longer. Signifying cultural change in a critical moment in our cultural evolution--their conquering of America (and the world). I think we should use image A. GloryRoad66 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@GloryRoad66: Although I agree with you that A is by far the most representative and best choice, you're a little late to this party. As for whether the Beatles actually disliked the collarless suits (an assumption that would need to be backed up with evidence), that's not as important as selecting an image that best represents them. Sundayclose (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: @AndyTheGrump: @Michael0986: @Hinnk: @Seltaeb Eht: @Jusdafax: @WWGB: @Tul10616: @Wcamp9: True--I am a little late to the party (hopefully fashionably so) and you are right that having evidence is always needed--I think I read that thing somewhere years ago. I'm glad you agree about the cultural significance (which of course is the most important consideration) and that image "A" would be best. I hope that others might agree. I'm wondering what everyone thinks? Is there a way we could achieve a consensus to move to image "A"? GloryRoad66 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I admire your persistence, but don't hold your breath. Take a look at the discussion in this section and you'll get an idea about how difficult consensus here can be. Through the years there have been frequent and sometimes lengthy edit wars over something as trivial as whether it's "the Beatles" or "The Beatles". Sundayclose (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I guess things just work out in time. Good luck! Happy Holidays! GloryRoad66 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I feel like even the "Anthology" series or "1" would work better than "Past Masters", but this one compilation album is still placed next to stuff like "Abbey Road" and "Beatles For Sale". How come?

Makes me curious.... Barcodc (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not " just a compilation album like any other." Past Masters is different from the Anthology series and 1 because the whole point of it was to include everything the Beatles officially released while they were active that wasn't available on one of their albums. Thus it has been regarded as part of the "core catalogue" ever since the Beatles' music was issued on CD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! Barcodc (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Past masters was never released on vinyl while the Beatles were together. A lot of those songs were also available on the red and blue album. It shouldn’t be considered part of their core catalogue. Besides, the cd era has been over for sometime and the main delivery service for music is streaming and downloads.

those songs on past masters were all released as singles on vinyl. Back in the 60s it was common for artists to release songs that were only available on singles. That way it would lead to more record sales, fans buying both the singles and LPs.

core catalogue implies the original format the songs were released as packaged by the Beatles themselves. Past masters was put together by the record company not the Beatles. The core catalogue is just that, the core catalogue of please me through let it be along with their singles releases.

magical mystery tour should also only be counted as an EP which was how it was originally released and intended. It was only released as a LP in America with older singles thrown on it from the peppers era like strawberry fields. It was a cash grab essentially and LPs cost more.

in essence, it is wrong to list past masters as core catelogue. Already people have been listening to those songs either through single releases, other greatest hits packages, or even on the album the singles were a part of. Apple recently remastered the LPs with the singles included eg white album included hey Jude, peppers included strawberry fields and penny lane. ~2026-81016-2 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Core does not imply "original format the songs were released as packaged by the Beatles themselves"; that's your arbitrary criterion. "Release" is not restricted to vinyl. A release can be in CD format. "Cash grab" also has no relevance; all albums are intended to make money. "Put together by the record company not the Beatles" is not a valid argument; nothing gets released without permission of the Beatles. And the fact that some of "Past Masters" was released earlier does not negate that fact that Past Masters is the final release because it contains material that was never released on an album. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. Past Masters came about during the remastering of the band's catalogue on CD in the 1980s. Up til that point, all the non-album singles failed to receive an album release in the UK, so PM collected all of them onto one package to compensate thereby having the entire catalogue purchasable on one medium. Henceforth, PM is a core catalogue release. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

'Preston received label billing on the "Get Back" single – the only musician ever to receive that acknowledgment on an official Beatles release' is false I think . see the credit given to Alan Civil on revolver ( for no one) Saghedvar (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Saghedvar:  Not done: Please provide a reliable source. Note that the current content is cited to a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

For No One was not released as a single with a "The Beatles with Alan Civil" credit. That is what the article means by "label billing." Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles Abbey Road album cover.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album art.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)