Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 5

Psychedelic Rock (Early)

I deleted "(early)" from the psychedelic rock genre under their music type. I mean, I would argue that they were always psychedelic. "The Dark side of the moon" and "The Wall" even had psychedelic sounds and music within it. Just because it wasn't Syd Barett or the 60's doesn't mean it couldn't be psychedelic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.158.62 (talk) 01:51, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Wording of Syd Barrett's Role

In the first block of information it says the band was originally lead by "the late Syd Barrett." This wording should be changed as "late" implies he died shortly after his stint in the band, whereas he died in the 00's rather than the late 60's. While his mind may have essentially "died" back then, obviously he didn't. Bm5481 16:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Position of the Animals album

Although the Animals album is the first one where Roger Waters has fairly taken over in terms of songwriting credits, I want to note that most of the music on this album was written and performed live before the Wish You Were Here sessions. Also, compared to The Wall and The Final Cut, it sounds much much more like a true Floyd album, containing lengthy compositions with long instrumental digressions. And although Rick Wright is not credited for any composition and maybe a little more on the background, this is the last classic Floyd album to have his signature playing on it. For these reasons I propose to group Animals with Dark Side of The Moon and Wish You Were Here (and maybe Meddle), instead of with The Wall and The Final Cut.

Members and Former Members of Pink Floyd

In the infobox, I don't feel that we should list the years of membership for each Pink Floyd member. That information is listed at the end of the article, and since that is the case, there is no need to list the same information twice. Tkd73 14:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Roger Waters be listed as either a current member of the band since he was in the band the last time they played?--Countertop 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think so, he was more of a guest performer than part of the band. It would be nice for him to be officially declared as part of the band if they ever did play more shows though.... ( Davehard 13:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC) )

What about the span of time (I don't remember when) when David Gilmore was the only "Official" member, when everyone left but came back later as "guest members"? (A Momentary Lapse of Reason? was it? It had Gilmore's name in bold and larger point size than the other 2, Mason and Wright) I remember there was a time but did not see that here anywhere. Maybe he left then came back before the recording? Billy Nair 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bob Klose was never a member of Pink Floyd. He was a member of the Screaming Abdabs, a band prior to The Floyd with Syd, Roger, Nick and Rick in it.

He was, at the very least, in Tea Set, the band which actually became The Pink Floyd Sound and later just Pink Floyd. It appears to me that he was probably still involved after at least the first name change. And by the way, Syd was not in the Abdabs / Sigma Six / whatever name they happened to be using that week; he didn't join until shortly after Waters, Klose, Mason and Wright reformed as Tea Set. PurplePlatypus 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Bob Klose was indeed a part of Pink Floyd when they were known as "The Pink Floyd Sound" in 1965. This has already been documented. If you want to begin from the time Pink Floyd began as an official recording act, then stick with 1967 as that is the year they signed to EMI and released their first single.

American point of view

I find it somewhat disconcerting that the vast majority of this article is drawn from an American point of view, whereas Floyd were far more popular in Britain. This, coupled with the fact that they're a British band to begin with, is a little irritating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.76.176 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Is it ? That should be changed. What specifically are you thinking of, though ? -- Beardo 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If this person is still paying attention, I too would like more specifics, because as someone who is originally neither American nor British, I don't see it at all. Also, it's hard to imagine them being more popular than they are in the US. In fact, they're something like the sixth highest-selling act ever in the US; don't they rank, if anything, a bit lower in the UK? PurplePlatypus 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes they rank lower in the U.K quite bizzarely. The Wall and Dark side failed to reach number one in Britain while in America they bothed reached number one. The bands more avante garde work was pratically ignored at the time in America, for example A Saucerful of Secrets didnt even chart! The U.S loves English quirky music, while Britons themselves are not always keen on it - some find it indulgent. - Ummagumma23 15:32 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Album covers

I'm afraid the use of the album covers as in this article at present seems to contravene the fair use provisions of the images. --Guinnog 18:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What parts of fair use do you believe were breached with the inclusion of these images ? --Kind Regards - Heligoland 22:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It came up at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Fair use of album covers in band articles a few days ago. The boilerplate text in the copyright tag reads:

"This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the album or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers

• solely to illustrate the audio recording in question..."

I was quite surprised as a good few band articles use the images this way. However, as I understand it they cannot remain. I came here because someone just tried to add similar cover images to The Who's article, citing this one as a precedent. I hope that explains where I'm coming from here. Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit of a grey area, I would say, certainly the images do make the article look nice, but it could be argued they also provide a reference for people to know which album is which, and if commentary was placed into the thumbnail caption, it could be argued they are being commented on and not simply being used to decorate the article. I'd certainly be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter however. I was expecting your reason for removal to have been lack of fair use rationale which I'm disappointed to see still hasn't been added to those images (I'll probably end up doing it myself). --Kind Regards - Heligoland 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops I hadn't checked! I was relying on evidence from my previous discussion of this. I have mixed feelings; I think judicious use of them would be nice, but I'm not keen on seeing them as a routine decoration on every band's article. On the other hand, there is considerable commentary and analysis of the albums in this particular article - does that make them fair use here? I'd say on balance no, and have sought wider comment and that seems to be the way of it. Maybe the answer would be to put the detailed description of the albums into the album articles alone, which is where the images are unambiguously fair use in. The album covers are beautiful and my removal of them is done regretfully; I'm just thinking of the intellectual property rights of the copyright holders who made them. --Guinnog 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You can re-add the album covers now "Provided that the content of the albums is discussed and the covers aren't sheerly used as a decoration, then using albums in band articles is acceptable. See recently promoted FAs Pixies or Megadeth." (Quoted from Teemu08 - Talk:Queen (band)) — miketm - Queen WikiProject - 19:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't a simple wikipedia watermark across the image be a simple solution?Mark1973 23:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything else to add?

Is there anything else we could possibly add to this article? I dont think there is, and if that is the case maybe we should stop editing it. Im not sure this article can be improved at all any more, because theres nothing else to add - Ummagumma23 27 January 2007.

There is this one small thing. The article says "David Gilmour is known to have referred to the group as "The Pink Floyd" as late as 1984, though they never released any recordings under that name." The latter is incorrect, I think. I have a copy of the "More" album that mentions on the front "played and composed by the pink floyd", and at the back again "produced by the pink floyd". I will not make any changes myself at the article, as I am new to Wikipedia (and not a Pink Floyd expert at all), maybe somebody else would want to make a move? - Donald Weber 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is another small thing. Ref to 1.4 "Waters led era 1976-85" mention is made to the band's "parlous financial state". There's nowt in the article explaining why these very rich people suddenly found themselves not very rich. Shouldn't there be a brief explanation? Something to do with a dodgy accountant, wasn't it? - Bunty and Reggie 5th March 2007

covers???

i think we should have a section in the artical for covers. my real reason for writing tho is i would like to find out wat bands have done covers of pink floyd songs, and what songs were they. should this be in a seperate artical?? or not?? - Fleta000

This information is in the trivia section for Pink Floyd, Pink_Floyd_trivia#Tributes. ErleGrey 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, y isnt it one artical considering they are both about pink floyd. consider a real encyclopedia. they dont have a main artical under "P" for pink floyd, then a seperate one under "T" for trivia pink floyd. so y should wiki have the same. wat are the advanteges/disadvanteges of haveing seperate articals - Fleta000

It would just have been too long. Pink Floyd is a featured article, so it is more important for the article not to be overly complex. The trivia article is on the Pink Floyd template, so it is linked easily.ErleGrey 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

DVD and Video

I think that a DVD and Video section is worthy for Floyd's discography summary on this article to outline the fact they have DVDs aswell as albums and singles but whenever someone has added it, it gets removed. What does everybody think? Davehard 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A full list is available in the main discography article. Anyway, I wish to see here more opinions.--Dr. Who 12:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As I was the last to add the Pink Floyd DVD's to the list, I guess I'm obliged to agree with you. Not all Pink Floyd Videos should be included, but the two essential ones (Pompeii and The Wall) should be included with an extended list in the discography site. Pompeii and The Wall are two of the major Pink Floyd pieces. I consider them both to be more important pieces of works than the soundtrack albums that is on the main page at the moment. Coq Rouge 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, let's include Pompeii & The Wall. You dislike that More and OBC are here? I strongly disagree with that, they are full albums, most of their pieces had their own life in live performances before the soundtrack-albums were released. I've never watched those films, but it is reported that their soundtracks are slighly different from the 2 LP. Zabriskie Point's tracks are commissioned works.--Dr. Who 13:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not dislike the fact that More and OBC are there, but I consider Pompeii and The Wall to be as important in the history of Pink Floyd. The other videos are not essential and should just be in the discography, but Pompeii and The Wall are essential. I'll dig up my previous added DVD list and add it if noone beat me to it. Coq Rouge 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone should remove, please re-add again. We have reached "consensus" here (3 editors). Add (see discussion) to the edit summary.--Dr. Who 14:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another user has added "La Carrera Panamericana". It's ok, i believe, let's do not remove it.Dr. Who 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pink Floyd asteroid

Could we consider removing the rather aimless Pink floyd asteroid from the info box. Surely its not really related to pink floyd in any way, and is just an excuse to put something else in that box. A type of flower is named after the band too - is that going to be put in as well? Putting in support artists in the info box would to me make more sense than putting in an asteroid or even a flower for that matter. Does anyone agree with me? Ummagumma23 14th February 2007.

Infoboxes are overabused. In this case imho the asteroid and the flower must be mentioned elsewhere, maybe in the trivia article only. --Dr. Who 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I can't see any asteroid here. Some clues about this?--Dr. Who 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (just kidding here, :P )

The asterios is "19367 Pink Floyd", and I agree that it be moved to the trivia section. I also would propose the moving of "Publius Enigma" and "Dark Side of the Rainbow" be moved to the trivia section, and the Live 8 link be deleted from the infobox completely, as it's not exactly intimately related to Pink Floyd.ErleGrey 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, later I will create a page within WP:Pink Floyd listing every article relevant to the PF "world". Anw, such talks belong to their most appropriate page [1].--

Dr. Who 12:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The hopes of Storm Thorgerson

In the final section of the article it mentions that Storm Thorgerson hoped that the band "Will do something" for its 40th anniversary. Is this really at all relevant? Since when has Storm Thorgerson triggered events in the Floyd world - he's just another fan whose hope for some kind of renunion has not yet been extinguished. (I know he's their cover designer but still). Does his opinion count that much? Also the red link for the fansite A Fleeting Glimpse should be removed - Wikipedia would never allow it - Ummagumma23 21:31 22nd February 2007.

no bob close wasnt in pink floyd

bob close was never in pink floyd I have read the biography called insideout written by nick mason THE DRUMMER! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.226.84 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree that no-one named Bob Close was in the band. Bob Klose, on the other hand...

Okay, a bit more seriously. I've read Mason too, as, I would hope, has anyone contributing to this article in any serious way. Also Schaffner's and Dallas' books and the relevant bits of several others. While technically he does not seem to have been around when they were called Pink Floyd, Mason makes it abundantly clear that he was in Tea Set - the same band, modulo a name change.

That's if Mason is correct. You do realize that one reason his book was delayed for about ten years after its originally anticipated release date was the huge number of errors in the early drafts, right? I realize that sounds odd given that he was there, but truth is stranger than fiction sometimes. PurplePlatypus 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the book was delayed. The other band members disagreed with much that he had written which is why it wasnt released until 2004 when it should have been released in about 1996. Not everything in that book is completly true, all the band are a little bit confused about the past. In fact archivists and collectors are often more reliable sources for information, Mason in fact went to many of thme asking for help with events etc. Bob Klose was in The Pink Floyd i think, he certainly gets a mention in many Floyd related texts. Ironically Bob Klose was actually one of the most talented musicians in the band - Ummagumma23 15:21 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 1996

Roger Waters did not attend the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame introduction in 1996. So please, do not change this. He did attend by satelite in 2006, but not in 1996. Coq Rouge 10:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Genres

According to the edit by Special:Contributions/156.34.232.31 (156.34.232.31) there is an consensus on the genres that Pink Floyd belong to. I have yet to find anything on these talkpages about this, but it is probably something we should have.

The genres that are pretty obvious belonging to Pink Floyd are Psychedelic rock and Progressive rock. They are also categorized as Hard Rock (even though I can't see this connection (maybe a couple of songs, but not as a general for the band)). But the "wars" when it get to Pink Floyd are the Art Rock/Electronic music. Personally, I have NEVER thought of PF as playing electronic music. They may have influenced many persons in the electronic music genre with their extensive use of electronic instruments, but they are basically a rock band that have an ocational electronic song.

So in my opinion the Psychedelic rock, Progressive rock, Art Rock and Hard Rock (even though I feel that this last one should be away to. Coq Rouge 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard rock has nothing to do here in my opinion. I don't know where it come from. I don't have any problem with electronic music being one of the genres, but I think there shouldn't be to many genres. I think it's enough with Psychedelic rock, Progressive rock and maybe Art rock. Floyd(Norway) 09:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pink Floyd are pretty unique and so it's awfully hard to classify them at all. The most similar band I can think of is Porcupine Tree and one sees the same debates arise over them, so they're no help as a reference point. I personally don't think Floyd even qualify as prog, much less any of the other genres mentioned here (except psychedelic, and that only in the early days). If you compare Floyd directly to the best-known clear examples of any of the listed genres, they don't have much in common with them, not even the prog ones (but then, those don't tend to have much in common with each other either). PurplePlatypus 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the user that put here Electronic music, indeed there are some songs (not more than 3 or 4) that can be seen as "pure" electronic music and 3 or 4 show hard rock features; Atom Heart Mother is a Symphonyc rock suite, I hope we agree on this. The term progressive rock is the most inclusive, but we are free to issue a poll, or quote just "prog" in this main article and mention different terms for each song.--Doktor Who 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you can say the songs Not Now John and possibly In The Flesh? are Hard Rock, but it really only works with maybe one or two other songs, so Hard Rock really shouldn't be listed as genre. Plus, maybe I'm just crazy, but Welcome to the Machine sounds like Electronic (around the end), but, just like Hard Rock, only one or two other songs work with that genre and so it shouldn't be listed. Art Rock, Progressive Rock, and Psychedelic Rock should be the only listed genres in my opinion.--ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever

20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Pink Floyd's hard rock:
  

The Nile Song
Ibiza Bar
Sheep (loosely...)
In the Flesh?
Another Brick in the Wall part 3
Young Lust
Run Like Hell (loosely...)
Not Now John (loosely...)
by Doktor Who 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Another song that's Hard Rock is One of These Days. Plus, Not Now John is Hard Rock in my opinion. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pink floyd are a progressive rock band, because they fuse together a whole host of different styles and genres. They are certainly not hard rock, in fact i would suggest that they are the opposite of hard rock. Like many bands of the late 60s and early 70s, Pink Floyd moved from being a psychedelic band to being a progressive rock band - Ummagumma23 23:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the opposite? Some works by Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin overlap styles of progressive rock, they often crossed the border between the two genres. None can have any doubts that the list of songs that I provided above is nearer to hard rock than prog, nevertheless, if we should link PF with only one genre, of course prog rock is the most appropriate. We are still free to label each song according to its real structure and style, I guess, right? I am open to any choice, unless someone will write here Ambient, cos I would certainly oppose.Doktor Who 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pink Floyd have produced a whole variety of different types of song. Some of their stuff is what you might call space rock, there is also psychedelic rock and pop, Hard rock like whats listed above, electronic (quicksilver for example), ambient (signs of life) and normal rock and roll. In the early days they did quite a bit of pastoral and folk peices and Rick Wright created a cod classical peice on Ummagumma entitled Sysyphus parts 1-4. Their music also includes sound collages and strange noises and effects. They have also produced what could only be described as art rock in the Final Cut, and they have even created a bizarre operatic peice for The Wall called The Trial. Their music is so eclectic that it could be listed under several different rock genres and prehaps they defie tradtional classification because of this variety in music styles. Ummagumma23 09:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

• Pink Floyds ambient rock;

Cluster one
Signs of life
Quicksilver
Parts of Shine on you crazy diamond
by Ummagumma23 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Never heard this term, ambient rock, it's an oxymoron; let's keep things straight: the word "ambient" refers to a kind of background-atmospheric music that can be either ignored or actively listened to. It is a functional definition, and none can see how Pink Floyd deep evocative sounds can be ignored. From a technical point of a view, also, ambient music features low dynamics, that means that every instrumental has a costant volume along its duration. Possibly Quicksilver only, if listened from its original vinyle release, satisfies these features. Since early 1990s a sort of "cabal" (haha, funny) , despite every copyright issues and laws, and despite any minimal sense of semeiotic, is obsessed with the term Ambient overabusing its use, almost giving that fucking word a sense of mistic and divine. If this inappropriate philosophy should prevail even on this site, please let me know, so that I will stop contributing to music topics, and I'll continue my honest search of truth elsewhere.Doktor Who 11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit though, both Cluster one and Signs of life are instrumentals which relie heavily on an ambient atmosphere in order to create an opening mood. Their music is quite soundtrackish, especially some of the longer pieces like A Saucerful of Secrets and Careful with that axe, Eugene. (For example Listen to the middle section of Echoes - its really just a load of ambient noises made in order to fill the song out). Ambient rock was perhaps a bad definition, and believe me their music can be ignored, just listen to the instrumentals on the More soundtrack, Quicksilver is enough to make anyone fall asleep - Ummagumma23 15:16 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Ehehe, you are right, Quicksilver is an ambient piece, but the others are atmospheric music- space music. When you can hear the beats and the drumming, it's space rock; incidental music and ambient music are 2 different types of background music (why are you not logged? :( apparently you are an anon).Doktor Who 15:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Credits

I have just noticed that someone has changed the layout of the credits section in the Meddle album article. Could we decide on a definitive layout for every album credit section, so that some sort of continuity can be maintained across the whole Pink Floyd album project. Should every credit section look like the one found in the Meddle article? Can i have your opinions please. - Ummagumma23 17:49 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The Wikiproject PF 's talk page is the most appropriate place where we can discuss such general topics and also issue a debate if needed. Or we can also definitely delete that project.--Doktor Who 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok ive moved this topic over to that talk page - Ummagumma23 20:03 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Editors

I really wish that unregistered users wouldnt keep editing this page - its getting on my nerves. This article should be afforded semi-protected status - Ummagumma23 4 April 2007 (UTC).

What is happening? what are they doing? I would nominate it for protection.--Doktor Who 12:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that the article doesnt need anymore editing done to it - its an FA class article why should it need altering? Wikipedia has recognised it as one of the best products of the community shouldnt we too? (Although i have to admit some of this article does sounds a bit POV) - Ummagumma23 13:06 5 April (UTC).

Semi protection is used for vandalism. You cant stop the article being edited by people trying to imporove it and even if a really good article it can always be improved (esp if it has POV problems) and the idea thaty no mopre editing is needed is completely contrary to the wikipedia ethos, SqueakBox 14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't be locked just because the article has FA status; it can be improved significantly even when this status has been achieved, and doing so would be against the general policy that Wikipedia adheres to.

--FrasierC 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It gets edited constantly though - its stupid. I cant believe there hasnt been edit dispusts before now - Ummagumma23 13:07 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Band members

I think that the band members section is incorrect. Richard Wright wasnt officially in the band until 81. He was sacked in 79 and was re-employed as a session musician for the 80-81 walll shows. He was not officially a member of the band during the wall performances, In fact i dont think he was an official member until about 89 or something. Does anyone agree with me here? Also did Waters play keyboards from 81-85? I dont think so - Ummagumma23 17:16 11 April 2007 (UTC).

The Future of Pink Floyd

It appears highly unlikely that Pink Floyd will play Live Earth this summer. Also, Pink Floyd did not reform for a tribute concert to Syd Barrett, as was rumoured. I don't feel that an official split announcement will ever occur, and the band does not appear to show any interest in reuniting for one off gigs for a good cause, something that seemed very likely after Live 8. If the band does not reform this year for their 40th anniversary as a professional group, I feel that it is safe to remove the indifenite hiatus tag and declare them officialy "over". Thoughts? - Tkd73 24:41 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, i think we can safely say that the band is pretty much over. I think there is prehaps still hope amongst the PF editing community that a reunion could happen. I think we should remove the indifenite hiatus tag soon, but not quite yet - Ummagumma23 09:15 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Until there's an official announcement I don't think it would be appropriate to change the status. This is not to say I'm holding out any hope, as I too strongly doubt it will ever happen, just what I think is appropriate for Wikipedia. PurplePlatypus 03:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Until they are formally disbanded they are still a band. Coq Rouge 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Pink Floyd on Tomorrow's World January 1968!

Just spotted this clip on Youtube of Pink Floyd on the BBC's program Tomorrow's World in January 1968. It was an item about a light machine - very interesting! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7EprSVVMzo --Brian Fenton 10:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, but its not really that appropriate in this section. Maybe it could be place elsewhere? Ummagumma23 00:03 13 May 2007 (UTC).

1 Band=Singular?

Shouldn't the beginning say "Pink Floyd is"? "Pink Floyd are" just sounds funny, I think.

Kaaos 15:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I see the Internal note now. Sorry! But should this article be written in UK English?

Kaaos 15:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

English band, English grammar. It's pretty simple. see WP:ENGVAR

Pink Floyd in Popular Culture

Other artists have this page; why not Floyd?

Because they are unencyclopedic crap(along with Trivia sections) and Wiki is pushing to eliminate these sort of "teen book report" type sections. see WP:TRIVIA. 156.34.215.139 02:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Particularly on articles that have already achieved Featured Article status.--Alf ^melmac 02:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Some popular culture info is included in Pink Floyd trivia article. I agree 'popular culture' sections are rather low brow. - Ummagumma23 21:17 23 May (UTC)

Album images?

Where the hell did they all go? Copyright paranoia sucks. dharmabum 08:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes we had to remove them some time ago i believe - Ummagumma23 21:15 23 May 2007 (UTC).

Maybe someone should ask permission, maybe through e-mail... post the confirmation sent back in Wikimedia Commons, then place a link on the page. Just to please the copyright paranoids? --Gabriel Texidor 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Barretts Last Floyd Concert

I havejust addedthedate/location of Barretts lastlive appearance with floyd inthe section on his decline. Ihave a ref source (online) for the info at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PFArchives/tourdate.htm#1968

butI dont have a clue how to addreferences. If someone could add theref for me. The info also featured in the BBC2 documentary Seven Ages Of Rock. Dondilly 02:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arnold Layne.ogg

Image:Arnold Layne.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Atom Heart Mother.ogg

Image:Atom Heart Mother.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Notes 55, 60 and 62 are empty.122.167.132.0 12:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Comfortably Numb.ogg

Image:Comfortably Numb.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Echoes.ogg

Image:Echoes.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Notes 55, 60 and 62 are blank. Could somebody please fill them up? This is supposed to be a featured article. Tommy Stardust 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've restored two external links. The existing "list of links" site appears to be indiscriminate and this not particularly helpful to users. The sites I've added are about the best there are for news of Pink Floyd; one belongs to Vernon Fitch, the guy credited by Nick Mason for assisting with his book; it also has a list of other Pink Floyd sites, so if only one such list is required, is the one which should be kept. Andy Mabbett 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fat Old Sun.ogg

Image:Fat Old Sun.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Free Four.ogg

Image:Free Four.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shine On You Crazy Diamond.ogg

Image:Shine On You Crazy Diamond.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Green is the Colour.ogg

Image:Green is the Colour.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Learning to Fly.ogg

Image:Learning to Fly.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Have a Cigar.ogg

Image:Have a Cigar.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"the late" Syd Barrett

The man died 38 years after he left, how could it be "the late?" Zazaban 01:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, he left the band due to mental illness. He died on July 7, 2006. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 00:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thatt's what I said. Zazaban 01:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"The man died 38 years after he left" is what you said. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I know. Zazaban 22:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Several Species.ogg

Image:Several Species.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Set the Controls.ogg

Image:Set the Controls.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Post War Dream.ogg

Image:The Post War Dream.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Nile Song.ogg

Image:The Nile Song.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Gold It's in The.ogg

Image:The Gold It's in The.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Gnome.ogg

Image:The Gnome.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Fletcher Memorial Home.ogg

Image:The Fletcher Memorial Home.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Poles Apart.ogg

Image:Poles Apart.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pigs (Three Different Ones).ogg

Image:Pigs (Three Different Ones).ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

I was going to add an external links, but didn't dare because of the warning... I understand it has been discussed before, so I'll just suggest the link here, and others can decide whether it is worth it or not.

The link on my mind is: ...which is not a fan site, but a music site (streaming radio) where you can listen to their music. Sverre 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Audio clips.

If there's anyone out there who still gives a shit about this article's FA status, the biggest thing in the FAC at the time was the lack of audio clips. So I spent several hours of time I will never get back creating and uploading clips that, as far as I and the people on the FAC knew, were fair use.

Now some cocksucking bot is tagging every fucking sound file I uploaded for deletion in the next few days. I don't care enough to bother answering their obscure lawyerese specific demands and think this whole project is in the shitter, but expect this article to lose FA status if someone doesn't deal with this shit. dharmabum 07:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging media (e.g. album covers, audio clips) as fair use requires that a rationale be provided as to why it's being claimed as such. This is a requirement of fair use -- if one is not provided, it's not fair use. Wikipedia has been somewhat lax in the past of enforcing that rationale be provided; now someone has decided to step up that enforcement to the full intent of the legal mumbo-jumbo. While I generally agree with the bot doing this, I do have issues with the approach the bot owner has decided to take, but I have already stated as such on the owner's talk page. Getting back to the issue at hand, someone needs to add rationale to the audio clips or they will be deleted as allowed by the deletion policy on fair use images. While I can understand your frustration with your time being wasted if the clips are deleted, copyright is being taken much more seriously than ever before so if one wants to upload files and tag them as fair use, they MUST be prepared to justify their claim. Simply adding the fair use tag is not enough. The question is, are audio clips justifiable in the band article itself or only on the song articles themselves (if they exist)? I draw a parallel to album covers being used in discography only or list articles versus the album articles. RedWolf 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to Pink Floyd trivia?

I saw this AFD saying that Pink Floyd trivia was kept. But, it redirects to the Pink Floyd article now. Can anyone tell me what happened? Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Floyd trivia (2nd nomination). Andy Mabbett 18:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 19:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not delete the Household Objects article? - Ummagumma23 13:05 16 June 2007 (UTC).

Why delete it? Andy Mabbett 13:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to retrieve anything to incorporate here - see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pink_Floyd_trivia&diff=137311172&oldid=136959147 -- Beardo 03:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we really say Pink Floyd is still active?

It's more or less broken up really. Zazaban 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pink Floyd are still active - they appeared at a Syd Barrett tribute concert earlier this year - Ummmagumma23 11:56 27 June 2007 (UTC).

They did? --Bongwarrior 14:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah read the end of this article - Ummmagumma23 10:43 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Are there any sources that confirm this? --Bongwarrior 22:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Since they are still active, can people please stop messing with the dates in the infobox? While there has been a long period of inactivity, there has been no official breakup of PF ever. Gilmour has stated recently that he wants to be finished with Pink Floyd, but Mason and Wright do not want the band to be finished, and have gone on record stating that they want to do another PF tour (Of Course, its up to Gilmour). Also, based on recent press releases, and Pink Floyd's recent events (Live 8, Barrett Tribute) they have not disbanded. While the chances of the band touring and recording are very slim, its not completely out of the question. We cannot say 1965-1994, 2005-present, because that states that they are an active band, which is not the case. However, we also cannot say 1965-1994, because they have been active beyond that (Also including their US hall of fame induction and Steve O'Rourke's funeral). I feel that saying 1965-present, with an indefinite hiatus tag is the most accurate statement, and if one actually reads the article, it makes sense. - Tkd73 24:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It says ACTIVE, not Officialy Together, but ACTIVE. When they're not really doing anything I don't see it as active. Zazaban 08:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I utterly agree with Tkd73, they are still technically active. And they did play at a Syd tribute concert it was all over various news websites related to PF - Ummmagumma23 09:52 28 June 2007 (UTC).

Then we should go with my compromise of 1965-1994 2005-Present. Zazaban 14:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that, but I feel that the problem here is the phrase "years active" I have always felt that Duration would be a better word. Anyway, I don't feel that we can say 1965-1994, 2005-present, because I feel it implies that PF split after the Division Bell tour, and have reformed since Live 8. NOT the case. They have been on hiatus, and over the last 13 years have still been technically active in the fact that they have not disbanded. If one really wants to go with the years the band has truly been active, it could very well read something like: 1965-1977, 1979-1983, 1986-1989, 1993-1994, 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007. This can get very wordy and confusing. Fleetwood Mac and Van Halen are other good examples of bands where there have been long periods of being inactive, but not disbanded. The band could very realistically be finished, but since there has been no confirmation, they are on hiatus. When the article was featured, it read like it says in the infobox, and I feel we should keep it this way - Tkd73 13:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, in the Band Members section, it should show the Live 8 Concert band members, e.g. Waters, but doesn't. - donelson 24 July 07

Waters was just considered a band member for that single concert. So, he should not be among the current Pink Floyd members. Coq Rouge 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bob Klose was in Pink Floyd

Bob was interviewed as a member on "Syd Barrett and the Pink Floyd Story". He was only a member for a sort time. He was a member when Pink Floyd started.

Yeah... so? --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would sign comments - Ummagumma23 19:39 11 July 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:One of These Days.ogg

Image:One of These Days.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:On the Turning Away.ogg

Image:On the Turning Away.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sysyphus Part II.ogg

Image:Sysyphus Part II.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Us and Them.ogg

Image:Us and Them.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wearing the Inside Out.ogg

Image:Wearing the Inside Out.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Years Active

Just because they have never announced that they were splitting up, doesen't mean that they are currently active. They aren't active anymore and this should be noted in the table. TomGreen 22:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See the previous discussion: Can we really say Pink Floyd is still active? Coq Rouge 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Collection of Great Dance Songs album

Why is no mention made of the "A Collection of Great Dance Songs" release in 1981? It is certainly notable for two things: alternate mixes of several tracks, and a complete re-recording of "Money" done almost entirely by Dave Gilmour (and why did the rest of Floyd not participate in this endeavour?).

I wish people would sign comments - Ummagumma23 19:39 24 July 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Time.ogg

Image:Time.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Rock

A friend of mine claims that several of Pink Floyd's songs qualify as gothic rock, citing Comfortably Numb as an example. After listening to it, it does seem to hold a resemblence to some goth bands, and was wondering if anyone else notices this. If so, I will find a source for it. Zazaban 06:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I utterly disagree with that comment. Ummagumma23 15:06 06 August 2007 (UTC).

Same here. Just because a song is a little dark in tone, as Comfortably Numb is, does not qualify it to be Gothic Rock. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My view is that Gothic Rock came after Pink Floyd was well established and although you might say Gothic Rock sounds like some Pink Floyd songs you can't really go the other way. You wouldn't say Muddy Waters was Rock & Roll just because the Rolling Stones tried to sound like him. Johny Cash sang an Industrial song "Hurt" but you can't say he was Industrial (Some bands change genre like hardcore-punk to new-wave to what-ever, but I don't think this is a case of that situation) Billy Nair 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point perfectly, but Comfortably Numb sounds nothing like Gothic Rock. It's just a little dark (both in lyrics and song). --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 14:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What? No. No. Pink Floyd is not Gothic Rock. Like several bands, they have a few downer songs, i'll give you that, but like BillyNair said above you can't classify a band like Pink Floyd as gothic because they have a few downer songs. I mean, would you consider The Pixies gothic because "Where Is My Mind?" is an extremely dark song? or Nirvana because "Come As You Are" is also dark? I mean, really this is stupid. If you agree with Zazaban that they are gothic, then it will never stop, there will be more discussions like this ("Is Sonic Youth are grunge band?", "Is the Cure emo?" ad nauseaum) I mean come on people Doc Strange 18:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell your friend Comfy Numb's claim to goth fame is being covered by Sisters of Mercy. However, Sister Andrew Eldritch used to routinely pick goth-"uncool" covers (cf. "Jolene") to provoke the audience.

Not goth, not even close. And why are we discussing it here instead of in Talk:Comfortably Numb? This is an off-topic thread that doesn't help edit this article. / edg ☺ ★ 19:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask people to not drag me back into this, my opinions have changed a great deal in the last month and a half. Zazaban 20:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)