Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Worldwide Sales

The lead said they have sold over 250 million albums worldwide but the cite for that claim says 200 million. I changed the number to correspond with the citation used. I also changed the hyperlink linking the phrase "most successful and influential" to the list of Best Selling Music Artists to be only the words "most successful," since record sales have little to do with influence, as evidenced by comparing the record sales of, say, Matchbox 20 and the Velvet Underground, among a host of other examples. 74.77.208.52 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT REVERT. The cite says 200 million, not 250 million. 74.77.208.52 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My edit is continuously being reverted for no good reason and with no commentary to provide a rationale. This is completely inappropriate. There is zero justification for claiming 250 million albums sold when the cite used to back it up claims 200 million. Stop reverting. 74.77.208.52 21:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed this back to 200 million as the citation still shows this figure and not 250m Deckchair 14:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

300 million has now been claimed, with a single citation (last.fm) - do we accept this? They in turn do not justify it[1] --C Hawke 19:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't accept it. It's circular linking. Stick with what is verifiable, which is USA sales. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added verified UK sales figures from the BPI site - it is a frames based site so I can't link to the actual figure, you need to do a search for them, and it is based on their awards of Platinum, Gold and Silver. I think this adds weight to the dubious nature of the 250/300 Million figure, as they would have to gain another 200 million worldwide outside what is probably their biggest two markets (US and UK)--C Hawke (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a shame that this British band is quoted for its sales "in the US alone." Who cares about the US?!--218.223.193.144 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Find an RIAA equivalent for other nations. We did that for the UK and it was deleted. Probably because it was "only" six million or so which pointed up how laughable these inflated "250 million" worldwide figures are. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You could say that, but considering Pink Floyd's appeal at the moment, it's most likely to be around the 240 million mark.

That's just speculation. That's not what wikipedia is about. --Ged UK (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Pink Floyd

Is there anybody out there interested in re-launching the whole project? Doktor Who 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah im interested what would that involve though? and do we need to relaunch it? Ummagumma23 04:02 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also interested. Finally I actually have time to do it. Coq Rouge 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ummagumma23 and Coq Rouge. Most of Pink Floyd-related articles have been written without, or just with little, involvment of the Wikiproject, nevertheless further goals can be reached. Soon I'm going to post some short msgs, and, within some days, new proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd. Any question posted at my talk page would be very welcome.Doktor Who 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can get a lead that doesn't look like it was written by Roger Waters. 74.77.208.52 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the lead? Zazaban 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine although id like to see the other members of the band prehaps recognised in the lead but i understand that most people feel that Waters is the leader and so should have priority.Ummagumma23 08:54 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can agree that to a certain degree, the lead is to focused on Waters. But, as Waters was the leader of the band in their most influencal period, it is also wrong not to have focus on him. As long as the rest of the article is balanced, there is nothing wrong with the lead focusing slightly more on Waters than the rest. The final line of the lead could probably be changed slightly to balance it. The classical lineup played together for the first time in 24 years on 2005-07-02 at the London Live 8 concert, playing to Pink Floyd's biggest audience ever. might be better than the one currently there. Coq Rouge 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Millenium?

Forgive my ignorance, but I recently saw someone with a Pink Floyd "Millenium" t-shirt. I had heard something about it before, but I don't know what "Millenium" is. It's not listed under Wikipedia's PF discography or live shows... could someone tell me what it is? And to help out ignorant people like me, possibly stick in some information in Wikipedia? Thanks- Gerafin 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it this t-shirt your talking about? My guesses would go to either a cover band, unlicensed stuff, official merchendice either in connection with a tour or other, or just fan stuff. There are bunches of stuff out there. I have never heard of any PF album named Millenium, or refered to as such, so it's not that. Might be some commercial stuff with a millenium re-release. Not worthy of mentioning in the article anyhow. Coq Rouge 06:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing images/audio?

The top of the page proudly announces the fact that "This article includes inline links to audio files". How many are there now? One. I noticed on one of the archives that the uploader had neglected to include fair use rationales.

But I can live without sample audio. The thing which confuses me now is that there are now no album covers. The main body of text now looks profoundly dull. Is there any reason, other than the fact that we'd need to go through and add a second (very similar) fair use rationale to each image, why we shouldn't re-add the images to the article? Una Laguna^Talk 10:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted images cannot be used for decoration, even in (for instance) discographies. There is even some controversy about whether album covers can be used on album pages if the cover art itself is not a subject discussed in the article (cf. Sgt. Pepper). Relevant linkage:

• Discussion: Album covers in band articles, again
• Discussion: Album covers in band articles, yet again
• Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable_images
• Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

We'd probably have better luck with audio samples. All that was needed were good fair-use rationales. / edg ☺ ★ 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick response! That makes sense, thanks. Una Laguna^Talk 10:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Haven't checked this article in a while. When I last did it, I'm sure there were lots more pictures. The article looks dull and boring without anything nice to look at. What happened to them all?

Given the beauty of their art work, I agree some more should be included--Jacobwilliamson 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as someone convinces the owners of Pink Floyd art to license it for GFDL-compatible free use. Until then, we have to work within fair use restrictions. / edg ☺ ★ 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Zabriskae point

Why is this missing from the lsit of Albums (albeit perhaps caveated by someone who knows more than I about the band)?

See http://www.pinkfloyd.net/albums/?album=50 where it's clearly a Pink Floyd album as I recalled —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonMWatts (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a discography on the bottom of the page that includes Zabriskie Point (album) under "soundtracks", along with Obscured by Clouds and Music from the Film More. Zabriskie Point is a multi-artist soundtrack/collection, and is as much a Jerry Garcia album as a Pink Floyd album. / edg ☺ ★ 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It's not entirely a PF album, as over half of it is by other artists. Doc Strange 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Animals bass

I heard from an unreliable source that David Gilmour played all the bass parts on Animals. If this is true it should be included in both articles. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Pink Floyd Encyclopedia by Vernon Fitch says Gilmour played bass on "Sheep" and "Pigs (Three Different Ones)", but Waters provided bass on "Dogs". --Bongwarrior 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this. On the "Echoes" CD, other tracks on which Gilmour played bass are listed as such (eg "One of these days..." and "Hey You") but there is no such credit on "Sheep". Pinkfloyd48 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Haven't checked this article in a while. When I last did it, I'm sure there were lots more pictures. The article looks dull and boring without anything nice to look at. What happened to them all?

Given the beauty of their art work, I agree some more should be included--Jacobwilliamson 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I beat you to the asking of the question. Una Laguna^Talk 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pink Floyd's year of formation

There are a few sites on the web that state that Pink Floyd was formed in 1964, but most sites I have read state 1965. I put a weblink for All Music Guide, which states Floyd formed in 1965. To my knowledge, the band was known as Sigma 6/Screaming Abdabs, etc in 1964 and did not become Pink Floyd (The Pink Floyd sound, etc.) until 1965. Does anyone have proof (Nick Mason's book, perhaps) that states the year the group was formed? I would love to know so that we can keep this article as accurate as possible. Tkd73 22:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The band itself formed in '64 or so as Sigma 6, then Screaming Abdads and became Tea Set in early '65. When the band discovered that another band had it (and they were OPENING for them), they changed their name to The Pink Floyd Sound after two obscure bluesman in 1965. Doc Strange 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

one Q. pink floyd wernt techniqly pink floyd as such untill after bob klose left, am i far off. i am not disputting the fact that bob klose may have been in a band with the other members of pink floyd. but that band and the one we knoe to day. was not the same. why then is he included in pink floyd band members then??? shouldnt it be band members in tea set, but then no include him in pink floyd sound. i have read nick mason's book "inside out" and it did not directly mention that bob was a member of said pink floyd sound. i am awear that this has been a continueing issue, but i would like to see some resolution otgher then a white wash by one person who canot accept otherwise that they could be wrong.????? blehhhh i had to say that hahaha :) Echoes000 (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was able to find a source from Nick Mason's book, stating that Pink Floyd formed in 1965. Tkd73 14:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Inside Cover of Nick Mason's book states: "Nick Mason first played with Roger Waters and Syd Barrett at the Regent Street Polytechnic in London in 1964, although they wouldn t become Pink Floyd until the following year. He lives in the UK." So there you have it. Pink Floyd formed in 1965, which evolved from a band formed in 1964. Any more questions? Tkd73 13:21 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All that says is that they changed their name. Does that make it a different band? Zazaban (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes! Sigma 6, which formed in 1964, is a different band than the one that became Pink Floyd. As I'm sure you are aware, this was a rhythm and blues band formed in Cambridge that in addition to having Waters, Mason, and Wright, included Juliette Gale, Keith Noble, and Clive Metcalfe who of course were never in the band that became Pink Floyd. Whenever Sigma 6 officially broke up, and the lineup of Waters, Klose, Barrett, Wright and Mason formed (whether that be Tea Set, Screaming Abdabs, etc) is when you have the band that became Pink Floyd. It is very common for a band to dissolve, and members of that band form another band. (ex: What started as The Quarryman became The Beatles, The Detours became The Who, The Yardbirds, or New Yardbirds became Led Zeppelin, in all cases two different bands connected to one another). Tkd73 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

This featured article needs images, and the references do not contain access dates. – Ilse@ 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a ton of images, but they were all deleted. We really need to loosen up on image regulations. Zazaban (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Main Picture

The main picture is a pig now? Whose idea was this? --86.143.153.13 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mine. The original picture was deleted for some unknown reason, so I used the best picture I could find in commons. I would upload something myself, but it would probably get deleted. For now, the pig is the best we have. I'm not happy with it either. Zazaban (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried looking for a free image with no luck, but I'm not particularly adept at finding them. If someone else wants to have a look, it would be appreciated. A picture from the Live 8 show, with the four of them holding hands at the end, would be a nice choice. But, if no free images can be found, they might possibly be considered inactive enough as a band for something to qualify under fair use. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a pretty good picture. I personally liked the one we had though, because it showed all five members. Zazaban (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent choice also, and because it's one of the few pictures to feature all five members, the historical aspect may strengthen any fair use claim. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Influenced

Pink Floyd has influenced rock music artists of the 1970s such as David Bowie[6], Genesis and Yes[7];

This page is quoted as the source:

http://classicrock.about.com/od/bandsandartists/p/pink_floyd.htm

while it is most likely that these bands would have heard pink floyd, to say that they were directly influenced by them is innacurate and misleading. i dont think that the About.com article is very informative, and unless a better source (such as direct quotes from the artists) can be found, this sentence should be removed, or at least edited.

david bowie was a fan of syd barrett era floyd, having covered 'see emily play', but it is too general to say he was influenced by a large body of floyds work. Vivisquallcloud (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Fairly certain Yes and Genesis weren't influenced by Floyd. Citing about.com is about as verifiable as citing wiki.Breadfap (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also regarding influence in first section of article: "Pink Floyd have influenced ... various modern artists such as ... Radiohead ... ."

The source cited for Radiohead is [2]. This is just a customer comment on Amazon. Blibbka (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To Present?

Why does it still list the band as being together? Gilmoure has said himself that there are no plans of touring or recording?Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion:

• Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 5#Can_we_really_say_Pink_Floyd_is_still_active.3F
• Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 5#Years_Active
• Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 2#Current_Status_of_Pink_Floyd
• Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 1#PINK_FLOYD_SPLIT_IN_1995.21.21.21.21.21.21.21
• Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 1#Membership_dates
• Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 1#Pink_Floyd_Reunion_of_the_4_members_.3F

/ edg ☺ ☭ 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading over all that I didn't see much consensus that towards listing 1964-present.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It should list 1965-1996. On indefinite hiatus. One off reunion in 2005 61.213.76.87 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Interstellar Overdrive.ogg

Image:Interstellar Overdrive.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the "250 million album sale" claime?

just google 'pink floyd 250 million' and you'll get pages of results, you have one week to include this in or I will. Radiohumor (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice threat. Now find a reliable source for the statement. FYI, it's been discussed before - see [3]. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Those "pages of results" got the figure from Wikipedia itself. It's called circular linking. We're supposed to document history here, not change it. See WP:RS. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

References in intro

The references relating to the "artists Pink Floyd has influenced" are all very iffy-they link to fan reviews, amazon user-created content, secondhand ticket sellers, and individual Geocities pages. I'm not saying that the assertions in and of themselves are incorrect, but these references do need to be removed from an otherwise well-cited article. Atlantik (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The references in that section are embarrassing, except for the Nine Inch Nails one. I recommend deleting the whole thing. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A list every single notable artist influenced by Pink Floyd would take up most of the article. Zazaban (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably. I moved them towards the end of the article, they're better off there. I won't object if they're removed. They do look like a gathering of fans, rather than an encyclopedia article. --Blechnic (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject/Verb Agreement

Are the words "group" and "band" in British English (BrE) plural? If so, what is the singular of "group"? Because in some of these articles, we have constructions like "the group have sold." It seems like it should be "Pink Floyd is an English rock band" and "the group has sold . . . ." The word "group" is not like the word "media," which is the plural of "medium." I know of several differences in AmE and BrE, and if this is one of them, fine, but it will be difficult to keep it consistent (for example, in the opening of the Led Zeppelin article, the band's name is treated both as singular and as plural in different sentences). Can someone provide some clarification, or at least cite to some rule of construction in which names of rock bands, unlike names of companies or governments or other collectives, are treated as plural? Judicata (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

British English treats band names as plural, so "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" is correct. I think that the words "group" and "band" would usually be treated as singular in both British and American English, though I could be wrong about that. I agree that a phrase like "the group have sold" is a little strange. There is some information regarding this at American and British English differences. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. So the band's name is plural by BrE convention, but the pronouns are not? Fair enough. Unless we get more input on this soon, I'll start conforming the article to that. Judicata (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

British English accepts group names and group pronouns as plural. In fact every English speaking country outside of the U.S. considers this correct English form. Only in the U.S. would someone say "They is a band". Pink Floyd are an English band. They are a "they" and not an "it". "The group have sold" = "they have sold" not "they has sold". The UK, NZ, Aus, Canada all treat this as "textbook" proper English. Hope that helps. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. "They" is obviously plural, so not even us dumb Americans would say something like "They is a band." A word like "group" can refer to either a single unit or to the individual members of that unit, and can be safely treated as singular or plural as needed. Your claim that they are always treated as plural is false. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Anger22, there is no such thing as "proper English". The correct terms are "standard" and "non-standard". Basically, BongWarrior is correct, Judicata. "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" and "the group have sold" would be the standard way of writing it in a BrE orientated article. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I learned something today. For the record, "they" in AmE is always plural, and "group" is always singular. But a sentence would read "Members of the group are" because "are" refers to "members," not "group." I now know this is not the case in BrE. Thanks for the link regarding formal and notional agreement. I'll note that difference between BrE and AmE in the future. Judicata (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Pink Floyd" is a proper noun that refers to "A group" and is, in both ArE and BrE grammatically equivalent to the phrase "a group." "A group" is a singular noun that would result in the conjugation of the verb "to be" as "is;" and because they are grammatically equivalent, "Pink Floyd" would lead to an identical conjugation of the word. Even if some people's incorrect convention of notions of how verbs should be conjugated is that it would be conjugated as if "Pink Floyd" was plural, it is not, and respectively "to be" should not conjugated as such, according to both American AND British standard English. Conventions of how British music culture uses incorrect grammar (while American music culture uses correct grammar, this should be as much of a determinant if either would have any say, which they do not) is no determinant of how English should be used in a strictly grammatically correct encyclopedia. The answer is "Pink Floyd is," end of story. Andrew Nutter (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! When a proposed edit is controversial, and advice is given to discuss it on the talk page, that doesn't invite you to declare everyone else is wrong, conclude with "end of story", and make the changes immediately while (incompletely and inconsistently) removing the warning comments from the article. I see Andrew's change has already been reverted.

To address Andrew's arguments: as Scarian pointed out, "proper English" is a misnomer; language is a product of convention. The logic Andrew describes, explains the probable reasons for American usage, but British English is an equally consistent system. Andrew's claim that established rules of grammar disagree with Wikipedia's style guide on this matter, cries out for a "citation needed" tag. And there is nothing in the style guide, or any previous discussion, that suggests this issue is limited to "British music culture"; on the contrary, it is universal regarding subject matter, and as was stated previously, used throughout the English speaking world.

Looking at previous comments in this section, it seems that not only concensus, but complete agreement was reached. Please do not make this change again. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not challenging anything said here, just clarifying for documentary purposes, that per WP:ENGVAR it is appropriate that this article use the British variant of English, because it covers a British band, and also because the article is consistently using this form already. Wellspring (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So, to throw my two cents at the first ever *cough* discussion of subject/verb agreement, I propose we change all verbs in the article to plural, since concrete subjects are really groups of smaller particles and since abstract subjects are written with multiple letters and typically represent multiple pieces of information. Only an American would think that objects can be comprised of one indivisible component warranting a singular verb. The rest of the world know the singular form of a verb are useless, and I are not going to be the person to try to change them. (Sarcasm and frustration over language drift aside, it's still comfing to see so many people diligently guarding the quality of wiki. My personal thanks to all who participate objectively.) 192.88.168.34 (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.34 (talk)

Very interesting discussion! I wasn't sure if it was a British/American issue, or a rule pertaining specifically to bands as plurals vs. mass nouns. I checked out the discussion page because "Pink Floyd are" completely breaks my Native (American) English Speaker Intuition. Issues like this (and all the articles where people fight over the spelling of colour or whatever) make we wonder if en.wikipedia needs to be split into multiple regions... UltraNurd (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be very awkward, to say the least. It would mean that each article in en.wikipedia would need to be copied and adapted to each of the regional offsprings: Canada (maybe even Atlantic/Quebec/Ontario/Prairies/Pacific subdivisions!), Australia, New Zealand, etc. I certainly would not like that! CielProfond (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Where would the awkward be? Which of those regions uses the dumbed-down ENG? In Atlantic Canada we tend to stick to our proper Auld English. There are very few in this region who speak Americanese. Aussies and Kiwis don't parlee le U.S.'r either. :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Music Video

Do any of you know how many music videos Pink Floyd has made. I need this on the Pink Floyd discography or a place where i can find the facts. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean promotional support type videos, or live concert type videos? I would have thought (assuming you mean the former) that all of their singles did, not that they released that many. Certainly some are on Youtube, though that's obviously not a reliable source Ged UK (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i mean promotional support type videos for singles not the live singles. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[4] might be a place to start Ged UK (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ged UK. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

featured Article

Pink Floyd discography has been nominated for featured article. Is it possible i can get som help with the article. --Freedom (song) (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave asking Roger to join on stage rumour

On #67 it links to, a now defunct, website stating that Nick Mason in his interview claimed that Roger Waters was asked to jion them on stage. Dave Gilmour never asked Roger Waters to join him on stage. In the interview Nick Mason said it would be nice if Roger could join them on stage. But Dave NEVER asked him, nor would he ever allow Roger to be on stage with him on his On An Island tour.

I think that #67 should be removed, and the text be altered to show what really was said.

Well yes, I was revering in last few days number of worldwide sales into 300 million. It is not big mistake after all if it writes over 200 million, but I saw a lot websites where they put over 300 million. I would point out last.fm. And if you calculate rewards and worldwide sales of each album, it appears that number of sold albums is really over 300 million. Thank you for your help and I hope that you will consider situation. L —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpavleti (talk • contribs) 17:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews being removed, does anyone care?

Yesterday one editor removed reviews from 5 different Pink Floyd album articles. Each article's infobox contained multiple ratings and links to reviews. The deleted review was not always for the same site. In one article, a Rolling Stone review was removed, while a Yahoo review remained. In another, only a Yahoo review was removed, etc. In each case, the common factor is the removed review was negative. The edits contained no edit summary, and that being the case, I am presuming the editor is just trying to be a "fan" by censoring negative reviews. Personally I don't care if reviews stay or go, but it does seem to me that this particular activity violates neutral POV, and is undoing someone else's work for no good reason. If nobody else cares, I won't bother to revert, but if you agree these changes should be reverted, please post here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Smells like vandalism. Revert it. But which articles? indopug (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and reverted. I didn't want to point to the articles or tattle on the editor because s/he has done constructive work before, and it's not outright vandalism. If the editor had a good reason for these edits, it should have been in the edit summary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My Two Edits

First Edit: Changing the period that Roger became dominant in from "mid-1970's" to "late-1970's." Their release that was most squarely in the mid-70's was "Wish You Were Here," which all four members have regarded as a more egalitarian, collaborative effort in the vein of "Meddle" or "Dark Side of the Moon." The first studio album release that was a product of Roger's dominance in the band was "Animals," which was released in 1977. Now, I personally consider '77 to be late-70's, so I feel it's more accurate to say that Waters became the dominant force in the band during the late-70s as opposed to "mid-70s," when the band was still more collaborative

Second Edit: In "Future Directions," I added after [[[Wright stated that he "wouldn't mind playing the Pink Floyd 'music' again,"]]] the line "but said nothing solid about reuniting with the actual members." This is to prevent the misconception that has already spread (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7CQXv, http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/gilmour%20holding%20back%20pink%20floyd%20reunion_1002034EJyfIs) that Wright is publicly gung-ho for a Pink Floyd reunion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCinder (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say about your first edit, is I've always seen "The Dark Side of the Moon" as the start of Waters' dominance of the band. I realize the others made significant contributions, but that's also true of later works. Over half of it, in composition and concept, is the work of Waters. I definitely regard it as the time the "shift" occurred. Does anyone else want to weigh in?

As for the second edit, it's already a bit exasperating that we have 9 paragraphs of speculation about future reunions. All these quotes look like excuses for "free use" copying from interviews. Maybe you agree, because you seem to think the quote is taken out of context, and is a misrepresentation, which you are trying to correct with a clarification. I am tempted to replace the whole section with one short paragraph, and no quotes, but of course leave in the references so readers can go see the whole interviews if they choose to. I'll bet this suggestion meets with objections. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say about your response to my second edit. As for my first edit, http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/ptr/pfloyd/interview/dark4.html interview with Waters. Of particular note is "When we were making Dark Side Of The Moon I was definitely less dominant than I later became. We were pulling together pretty cohesively"; I think that if Waters himself--never one to minimize his role in the band--allows that DSOTM was a very collaborative effort, then I think it's wise to consider it as such. CinnamonCinder (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong pig!

The flying pig picture in the "Roger Waters - led era" section, with the legend "The promotional poster of the Animals album for a concert in Vancouver, Canada", is NOT that of the promotional poster for a Pink Floyd album, but that of a flying pig used in Mr. Waters' North American 2007 tour.

I have seen the same flying pig at Mr. Waters' show in Montreal in June 2007. When we click on the picture to see it in full size, its page indicates that the picture was taken 2 months later (in August 2007)...

CielProfond (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it, thanks for pointing that out. It would be more suited to one of the Roger Waters articles I think. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some funny guy wrote "the best fucking band ever" at the right side of the page. i dont know how to take that off.

 Done --Ged UK (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Join the rock music project

Join the rock music project today, it needs your help. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Something's not quite right.

Every time the word "The" appears, the rest of the line of text appears below it instead of next to it. I have no idea what's wrong with it, and I won't edit it back again because it'll take too long.Donniedarkofan2006 (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean specifically italisiced versions of the word? If not, it seems fine to me on this old version of IE. Ged UK (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

Pink Floyd rock, pure and simple. One of the best bands of all time. Sorry, but that needs to be said. I think it should be the first line really, has to be about the best description which can be attributed to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.98.104 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not if it's just a comment that's come out of your head. If it's a comment from a reliable third party source, then fine. Ged UK (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not active

This is so simple. NO ONE, in any form, work under the name of Pink Floyd any more. There are no tours or new recordings from a 'Pink FLoyd'. The members attend no events/award ceremonies or anything under the name of Pink Floyd. They are INACTIVE! Tom Green (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but every time I try to argue this the consensus seems to stand that they are in fact still together. Zazaban (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what indefinite hiatus means. They haven't officially split up. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

David Gilmour has stated that it's not coming back. Zazaban (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is a recent article, as in after the Live 8 reunion, feel free to link it and change the article. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 18:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Roger Waters stated that Pink Floyd wasn't coming back in 1985. That didn't make it true. Not to mention that the band members have been rather indecisive on whether the band is finished for good (see the Future Directions section of this article). Una Laguna^Talk 18:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading the Future Directions section, I have to agree with Una Laguna. I believe on indefinite hiatus is the better word. The source that Zazaban linked is actually already mentioned there. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of which we decide on, I should also point out that the spot where the edit is taking place has a comment which says, "Please: Do not change the status of Pink Floyd without a discussion on the Talk Page". Not only was this ignored, it now refers to a different "status" than what was there when the comment was inserted. This is not good editing practice.

Sorry, must have missed that. :( Zazaban (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Now if we're polling, I think I might have to take Zazaban's side on this one. Any defunct band with living members might get back together someday; the likelihood is in the eyes of fans with wishful thinking. But if there are no plans for a reunion in the forseeable future (especially if we're talking about a proper working reformation with new studio albums rather than another one-off live appearance, but I'm not aware of any intentions of the latter either), "inactive" is the same thing as "on indefinite hiatus", and a more realistic status. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not split hairs over this. We are talking about the years the band is ACTIVE. Despite no 'split' being announced, or any perception of them still being 'together', NO musicians do ANYTHING under the name of Pink Floyd. Album compilations and re-releases do not count as countless music is released by long defunct bands. Tom Green (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am one that has defended the indefinete hiatus tag for awhile now, but I do have to agree that its safe to declare Pink Floyd defunct, because they pretty much are. Yes, there has never been an announcement of a split, and yes Pink Floyd still legally exists, but they have not done anything as a regular operating group in almost 15 years, with no plans to reform other than for a one-off, or short reunion, and the chances of even that happening are slight. Dire Striats and The Police come to mind for bands that disbanded quietly, or simply ceased to work together without a major press anouncement declaring them "disbanded". The only thing I would state, is shouldn't 1994 be the last year we have them listed? I don't understand why 1996 is listed. The Division Bell tour ended in 94, they were on hiatus in 96. Tkd73 (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Division Bell tour ended in 1994, but PULSE was released in 1995. I think 1996 was the first year nothing happened. Una Laguna^Talk 08:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pulse was recorded in 1994; its release is not a band activity. I'm going to update the article, but this shouldn't be taken to mean the discussion is closed, if anyone has more to add. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I just thought, what about the Echoes compilation (released 2001)? These three pages [5][6][7] suggest the band was involved. Una Laguna^Talk 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, since Echoes is a compilation of past material. If PF recorded new material for it, (ex: The Beatles Anthology Project), or toured in support of the release, then yes they could be considered active. We're all aware though that neither happened. PF members were asked to give input as to what songs should be on the compilation, but they were not actively working together as a group in 2001. Tkd73 (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am delighted with what it says now. 1994 is the last year they were active. The infobox is designed to give at-a-glance facts to the casual reader. 'Years active' is basically touring or recording and if it were to read present, many would believe the band still tour and record AT PRESENT. Anything that needs to be mentioned such as compilations should be noted in the article. Tom Green (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: the next part of this discussion was added in a separate section, but belongs here, so it has been moved

Someone has reverted my edit which placed Gilmour, Mason and Wright into the current members box. However, under the circumstances I have to insist as:

• PF have no formally dissolved despite years of inacivity
• this is reflected in the members section below which gives for instance Gilmour as being a member "since 1968" (BTW, I got rid of the ugly "-present" wording)
• hence, the article may not contradict itself. Either we decide that PF is de facto over (which would require us also to decide when it was over) - then all members are former members - or we consider them merely inactive - then only the ones that left (Barret, Klose, Waters) are former members
• if all members are former members, all six would belong not into the former members box but into the members box. Have a look at other disbanded bands.

If you ask me opinion, I would consider them only inactive, not dissolved. But I'd also be fine with the other way round as long as the article is consistent. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. If we decide that PF is over, that doesn't mean that we should feign a "disbanding notice" from the band members. We'd still acknowledge the indefinite hiatus but take this as an end point, at least for the time being. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And the end date would not be 1994 but either 1995 (release of the hitherto unreleased PULSE) or 1996 (as the first year without activity). Str1977 ^(talk) 11:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the 'not active' section above for the arguments. --Ged UK (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have. But this is not all. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

End of moved section

In response to the further objections added in a separate section below called "Current members etc." (now moved immediately above); the discussion here is about the infobox, but it may be that the body of the article needs to be altered to match what we've decided. While "1968 to present" certainly clashes with the infobox status, "since 1968" could be read to mean that there was no formal departure and replacement by another member. We could say John Lennon was a member of the Beatles "since 1960" without worrying about the facts that the Beatles are defunct and Lennon is deceased. But if you think something needs changing, go ahead and change it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, virtually everything you mentioned was discussed in this section, and I think it's clear that you hadn't read it when you posted what you did, and made edits several times to the article. (No offence; nobody is expected to read everything before they edit or post; it's just impossible!) You say "this is not all". What issues are still outstanding? Please, let's discuss it here before we get into more edits and reverts. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: You said, "If all members are former members, all six would belong not into the former members box but into the members box. Have a look at other disbanded bands." This contradicts the Infobox instructions which state, "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here (Past Members), and none in the 'Current_members' field." --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that way of proceeding a bit strange, as it said above "this shouldn't be taken to mean the discussion is closed", yet I am getting blanket reverted for my reasoned edits. I had read the above before my first edit but I read it later on, inbetween.

Okay, let me restate my case:

I seems to me that above you agreed on a "not active" status, i.e. that though PF is not officially disbanded, it should de facto be treated as if it were. I don't mind that. But then we must

• adjust the members section (e.g. from "(since 1968)" to "(1968-1995)".
• put all the members in the members section. Look for instance at The Beatles were all Fab Four are given under members (sure, there are also former members, but these were two quite short-lived ones that left before the fame came, only Bob Klose would be a candidate for this). My point is: if the whole band is "former", the "former" members are merely members. This is one item not discussed above.
• As an ending date, I would prefer 1995 because, as stated above, this is when they last released new material. Sure it was recorded in 1994 but we cannot pretend that when the last note of the last concert of the Division Bell tour had sounded, PF were no longer active and the release of PULSE was merely an act of the record company. Echoes is something completely different as it came after years of inactivity, did not contain any new material and was followed again by years of inactivity (save one gig) until now.
• Another edit of mine that was reverted was my removing the "darkly" ref from the years active box (along with the improvement of the footnotes formatting). But as it is, the linked article does not reference any years.
• Finally, yes the former wording made it seem like Waters graciously "allowed" them to use the name. He reached a settlement with them, withdrawing his case, because he couldn't win it. The legal aspect was totally ripped apart into two sentences.

So, this is my case. I will now proceed to implement the "not active" solution including the members section. If anyone objects, please state your arguments here. Please, please, do not simply blanket revert me without giving any arguments. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I re-looked at your edit and you were right, and the present wording is better, in my opinion. Since Pink Floyd is a "former" band, and you changed "former members" to "members" should we do the same thing on Led Zeppelin? ZXS9465 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

also, since Syd Barret was not a member for the whole of Pink Floyd's career, shouldn't he be considered a "former member" along with Bob Klose?ZXS9465 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be possible though not a clear-cut case he was a much more prominent member than Bob Klose. But for the longest time, PF was Mason/Wright/Waters/Gilmour so it is an option. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not hugely fussed one way or the other, but whichever way we go, we must be consistent throughout the article. The infobox must match up with the article. This is supposed to be a featured article, but it doesn't have consistency, which makes it incredibly sloppy. --Ged UK (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We haven't been "blanked reverting" your changes (some, such as the removal of "to present" have received our approval, and were never reverted), but I can understand your frustration because we changed many of your edits, and there has been some minor edit warring. Please understand our frustration; there was another minor edit war over this a few weeks ago, we discussed it here and reached a consensus, and now it seems to have started up again days later. Despite what you've said, it was very clear to me that you hadn't read all that was said on the talk page, because you rehashed arguments already discussed and agreed upon, started a new section, and in one edit summary you said something to the effect of "when did we agree on this?"

As I said, I hadn't read it for my first edit, I did so later. Just because I saw things a bit differently doesn't mean that I hadn't read it. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your request that your new changes stand for the time being: Rules for addressing edit warring state that once there is a discussion on the talk page, editing should stop until a concenses is reached. Not only was there a discussion; the issue was mostly resolved before you made your edits. Therefore, you should not have made them in the first place (but I understand you didn't see the discussion, so that's okay), and it is not appropriate to re-instate your changes now, and ask for them to be kept until we review the issues all over again. That's not the way it's done. I will keep your latest edit for the moment, but if we don't reach a new consensus pretty darn soon, I will have to insist we put it back to the way we agreed previously.

I cannot see where these (unwritten?) can be upheld when reverting my edits already went against these. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the points in your new list have also been addressed before. Here are my replies to your new list:

• adjust the members section (e.g. from "(since 1968)" to "(1968-1995)".

• Already replied above: While "1968 to present" certainly clashes with the infobox status, "since 1968" could be read to mean that there was no formal departure and replacement by another member. We could say John Lennon was a member of the Beatles "since 1960" without worrying about the facts that the Beatles are defunct and Lennon is deceased.

• put all the members in the members section. Look for instance at The Beatles ... This is one item not discussed above.

• It certainly was: The question of whether to categorize any members as "current" was the whole reason this section was initiated! The Beatles infobox does not follow the instructions, and is not using the infobox properly. I already posted a link to the infobox instructions: Template:Infobox Musical artist#Past_members

• As an ending date, I would prefer 1995...

• Past versions of the page have said 1994, 1995, 1996, 2001, 2005, and the present. Picking the date that the band worked on compiling a live album from recordings made in 1994, is no more valid than any of the reasons given for other dates. Early in this discussion, I posted: "(Pulse's) release is not a band activity", Tkd73 concurred with: "If PF recorded new material for (Echoes)... or toured in support of the release, then yes they could be considered active", Tom Green concurred with: "I am delighted with what it says now. 1994 is the last year they were active. The infobox is designed to give at-a-glance facts to the casual reader. 'Years active' is basically touring or recording... Anything that needs to be mentioned such as compilations should be noted in the article." Consensus was clearly reached.

• Another edit of mine that was reverted was my removing the "darkly" ref from the years active box (along with the improvement of the footnotes formatting). But as it is, the linked article does not reference any years.

• You're right; the reference is being to demonstrate that Pink Floyd are not considered active by Gilmour, and is not intended to be a reference to the range itself. I believe this was inserted to prevent someone from changing it to "-present", which may have been what it was before that reference was added.

• Finally, yes the former wording made it seem like Waters graciously "allowed" them to use the name. He reached a settlement with them, withdrawing his case, because he couldn't win it. The legal aspect was totally ripped apart into two sentences.

• I am looking at the edit summary again [8] and as far as I can see, there is no change in content, just the order of statements. I agree with ZXS9465, the editor who reverted it the first time, that changing the order does not change the emphasis of the paragraph in the way you suggested in your edit summary, and repeated above. The order in the original version was intended to relate events in the order they occurred: (1) album released, (2) Waters sues, (3) album and tour enjoyed success, (4) settled out of court. It's possible this is not the right order (did Waters sue before the album came out?), but your edit does not address this.

Whew! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the distinction at all, "since 1968" means the same thing as "1968-present", only it is stylistically better. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• No, current vs. former members was not discussed in this section.
• IMHO 1995 is the most valid date as nothing happened afterwards. Of course, if you want a clear-cut, undisputable thing, we would have to state that the band is still alive. Please don't use the "casual reader" non-argument. My version is just as clear to the "casual reader". PF published a record in 1995, hence they were active Period.
• Thanks for the clarification about the ref. I take it then that the ref has no real business being there.
• My main point was a) present things in logical connection, so the whole lawsuit issue in one passage, b) avoid the "Waters allowed them" phrase as it simply not true. He never had the power to allow (and he confirmed this in a later interview contained in some documentary) Str1977 ^(talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason i said i liked Str1977's wording for the legal matters (see my previous comment) was because i thought "the album enjoyed success" after they "settled out of court". But if that's not the case, then the original wording (the one that was "totally ripped apart into two sentences.") would be better, and it actually seems to be the logical order (release, sue, success, settle). ZXS9465 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it just makes sense that in any "Former Band" all the members would be "Former Members", so that should be added again.ZXS9465 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I still say that since the infobox instructions state this, that should be the deciding factor. Another issue has been raised as to whether the "Personnel" section in the body of the article should be regarded as the same thing as "Current members". It has been suggested that splitting the list into "personnel" and "former memebers" is in conflict with the infobox, even though they are not using identical terms. I would contend that other articles on non-active bands which use the infobox correctly, split the personnel lists into latest and former members, and this is an accepted standard. But if there is a concern, maybe it can be resolved by rewording the headings. How about:

• Personnel (as of latest activity in 1994)

• Richard Wright – keyboards, vocals (1964–1981, since 1987)
• Nick Mason – drums, percussion (since 1964)
• David Gilmour – lead guitar, lead vocals (since 1968)

• Former members

• Syd Barrett – guitar, lead vocals (1964–1968)
• Bob Klose – lead guitar (1964-1965)
• Roger Waters – bass, lead vocals (1964–1985)

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's on the right track, i think, but a bit wordy in "as of latest activity in 1994" (but i can't think of anything better at the moment!). And I've never seen an infobox for any band listing instruments played and years of membership (not saying it's a bad idea, I've just never seen it on WP). ZXS9465 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have such distinctions. This is again keeping the article in inconsitency. If the band is de facto over (and anything giving an end date for Gilmour etc. is saying that), all members are former. It would be best to simply put all members there and the years given indicate when each was a member. Anything else is needlessly complicated. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is for the article, not the infobox. It's the same as previous content, except for the heading. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and therefore it is not useful. It restores inconsistency. I demand that the article must decide whether PF is alive or not, not something in between. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If enough references point one way or another, we can. I prefer to think of them as an inactive band, since they have not recorded or preformed live (with the exception of reunions) in quite some time. This doesn't mean they cannot reform, but as of now the band is broken up, or at least on an extended hiatus (consider The Misfits, who broke up, and reformed more than ten years later). ZXS9465 (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Or Bauhuas who broke up and reformed 25 years later. Zazaban (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please, ZX, be serious. This is not an issue of references. We have references and now the facts. The issue is how to present these facts (not neatly fitting into the forms laid out on WP) in this article and that is our decision. We have to make that decision one way or the other and we have to be consistent about it. And "they cannot reform" is not an issue at, since all bands can reform as long as the members (or most of them) are alive. That doesn't change the fact that there are former bands. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I was saying. Since they broke up they are a former band. You must have not read my comment fully. "I prefer to think of them as an inactive (or former) band." They should be considered former. And of course references matter. A band could be inactive for a long period of time while still not being "broken up". Consider Fugazi, on a hiatus. If they never officially announced said hiatus, one of these discussions would probably appear. I'm not sure, but i don't PF members have ever officially addressed the matter. If they never have, I do think its safe to say, with the information we have available, they should be considered "former". (sorry if this is a little hard to read, i just woke up and am still almost half asleep.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZXS9465 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, i knew i made a mistake! I forgot to sign. ZXS9465 (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good if we agree. My criticism was more directed against your raising the issue of references. I don't think there is doubt about the facts of the matter, merely about the way of how to present this. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WARNING! The following comment was written in great haste by an editor altogether bored with how long an agreement is taking. Sections may be hard to understand, and possibly already covered by previous comments. Reader discretion is advised.

Well the infobox now says "former members" (dunno who changed it, but I'm not gonna revert it since that's what I wanted it to say the whole time), so I think the personnel section is fine now. And the only reason I raised the issue of references was because I wasn't sure whether it was ever confirmed that they were inactive or active. I don't spend my time reading Pink Floyd press releases (i'd rather listen to their music), but if it was never touched on by the members, then the article seems fine now, as long as there isn't any content saying Pink Floyd is active. Like you said (Str1977): "I demand that the article must decide whether PF is alive or not, not something in between." As long as it says throughout the article Pink Floyd is not alive, (and I have NOT checked; I don't have the time) I think this talk section is officially OVER! (hopefully)ZXS9465 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd recieving the Polar Music Prize award

Should there be a mention of this in the article? [9] Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for it. But how strange it is that Pink Floyd should receive an award created by a member of ABBA! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This article has been move protected

An administrator has move-protected the Pink Floyd article; there is no longer a "move" tab at the top. The edit summary says "high edit page count", which is not among the recommended reasons for protecting pages as outlined at the Protection Policy page.

From that page: "Any type of protection or unprotection may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Changes to protected pages should be proposed on the page's discussion page, and carried out once there is consensus to do so." There are no requests for protection of Pink Floyd that I can see. A short list of reasons to move-protect a page includes: "Pages subject to persistent page-move vandalism". There have been no instances whatsoever of page=move vandalism on this article. As for other types of vandalism, looking over edits made in the past 2 weeks, I see one highly POV edit that might be considered vandalism, or it might not. I don't recall any persistent vandalism problems in the recent past.

I do realize there is no reason to expect the Pink Floyd article would be renamed. However, the spirit of Wikipedia policy is to allow any potential changes unless there is a particular reason for concern. I see no reason why there is any more concern regarding this article, than for an average article. I can't find any recent policy changes relating to move-protecting a page just because it has a high edit count. So I am objecting to this protection on principle. In accordance with the quote from the instruction page above, on how to deal with this, I am asking for watchers of this page to state whether they support or propose this protection. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose on principle; criteria for move-protection not met, nor even approached. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as AKWSN. I was surprised when I saw that this had been move protected, I hadn't been aware of any attempts to move the page, or any serious level of vandalism in the recent past. Has anyone asked Nawlinwiki (who I consider to be a very sensible admin) why she did this? --Ged UK (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as AKWSN - criteria for move-protection hasn't been met; no need for protection, anyway. Una Laguna^Talk 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment It was moveprotected because our recently active pagemove vandals have specifically targeted pages with high edit counts (where vandal pagenames can't be easily erased from the history). And, as stated above, "there is no reason to expect the Pink Floyd article would be renamed." But since those who watch this article closely seem to want it un-moveprotected, I've done so. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Postscript

Thank you. The explanation is what I expected: there is a project underway to protect many pages in anticipation of trouble. It's too bad that we have these vandalism problems at WP; and maybe I'll have to eat crow if this article is moved by vandals. Hopefully the protection you are adding to other pages will not be permenant. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it got move-vandalized after all! But it was reverted by ClueBot almost immediately. If this article had been protected, I'm sure the vandal would have picked another – as well as the fact that the article would have needed to be move-protected for a full week (which I don't think usually happens at WP on articles that don't have a history of vandalism), so the protection probably wouldn't have prevented the need for repair-work somewhere. I wonder if anyone has figured out why one particular vandal wastes his time with these obvious acts that don't last. This vandal leaves silly rude messages which makes it seem like a child is doing it, but as I understand it, the suspects are believed to be an organized group of people. Very strange. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

All vandals are strange, these ones particularly so. Sometimes I think it's an account that's been hacked somehow, as there is nothing in the previous edits that suggests vandal. Still, page protection would have helped slightly here, but to be honest the bot reverted it soon enough, and there are enough people going back over the vandals edits that nothing really gets missed. --Ged UK (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous edits from that ID were all done the day before, and were trivial changes made to one article, to gain the necessary number of edits to be allowed to move an article. I see there is talk on the Admins' Noticeboard about changing WP so only admins can do page moves (this would be a permenant change affecting all pages), but like the idea of protecting certain pages individually, it is not gaining consensus, because it's felt that if we disallow vandals (and everyone else) from doing something, they'll just do something else instead. The admins also seem to agree that although this kind of vandalism is annoying, it's not something we aren't already able to control as soon as it happens.

If anyone is interested in watching what the admins discuss, there is a template with an index to all their public pages. It used to be on one of the Village Pump pages, but when it disappeared, I copied the index onto my userpage. You can do that too, if you like. I won't paste the box itself here, but you can get it by copying the following code onto your own userpage:

{{editabuselinks}}

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to move protect the page but saw this discussion. This page will be regularly attacked and we cannot delete the diffs because the page has too many revisions. I strongly recommend a move protection as has been done for thousands of high visibility articles with no legitimate reason to be moved. Cenarium ^Talk 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A temporary protection is appropriate under the circumstances. My obejction was to a long or permenant ban on the article for the original reason given (article receives many edits) when we don't have a policy of protecting all pages in a similar situation (which, as I understand it, is under discussion elsewhere). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason articles with a long history are a target for page-move vandalism and so generally move-protected is that moving all the history strains the servers. When exceptional, it is has no visible effect, but when a lot of pages with considerable history are moved (for example, about 300 pages were moved maliciously yesterday), it generates server errors, read-only modes and the like. Cenarium ^Talk 12:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, i move protected. Don't forget that it's not a ban on moving the page, but only to prevent disruption of Wikipedia. You can request any time to lift the protection if there's a need to move this page. Cenarium ^Talk 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unformatted citations

I did a bit of MoS cleanup, but most of the citations here are unformatted, breaching crit. 2c of WP:WIAFA. Hopefully someone can get to them. See Punk rock for an article with formatted citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. To be honest, I don't really know how to format references (if we're talking about books), though I would make an effort to copy the format of an existing reference that looks like it's done correctly, if that's any help! But I do look for things like off-site URLs stuck in the middle of an article where a reference should go, and internal links done with a full URL instead of a wikilink. And of course, looking out for dead links, spam links, links to a redirect, and links with just a URL and no description, or a misleading description. If we all take time to fix problems we know about, we should eventually meet the standards. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

End date

Dear Knight, you said in your edit summary you would raise the issue of PF end dates on user talk. I don't see anything hence I am posting here. It is utterly wrong to claim that PF ended in 1994 just because that's when the last toured. The live album Pulse was published the next year. Yes, it was recorded during the 1994 tour but then it also had to be produced (I don't think the three had no hand in this, do you?) and then it was published. Yes, a live album but still it was new material, not merely a compilation of already published stuff. Hence, that was PF's last publication, their last activity (except Live8) and hence should serve as the end date for their de facto end. We do not say the Beatles ended in 1969 even though their last two albums were recorded in 1969. Let It Be in 1970 was their last publication and would serve as an end date had their been no official announcement of their dissolution. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I also see that someone has reinserted that ugly "-present" again. We had a consensus to do away with that! Str1977 ^(talk) 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And finally, I though we consider PF inactive, de facto ended. And the personnel list MUST reflect this but someone reworded it so that PF would be an active band. I will restore a sensible reflection of the inactive status. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Str, I respect your opinions and input on this issue. But they are just one person's opinions, as are mine. We have reached consensus about the date ranges, and that didn't just happen this year. Since then, there have been frequent attempts to change both start and end dates to several other options, including others that neither you nor I agree with. Our response has been to change them back to consensus each time this happens, and this should continue.

When we had a recent discussion, I gathered several responses in favour of 1994 in one paragraph, and have cut and pasted it several times as a reminder that at least 3 people besides myself were strongly in favour of that year for the end date, with compelling reasons. I won't paste it here again; you've seen it, and it's already elsewhere on the page. You must respect this consensus, and not keep changing it every time you post here.

Regarding the argument that Pulse has new material: there are no new songs on it, and the music was recorded in 1994. Going by your argument about this, Is There Anybody Out There (live album released in 2000, and probably edited and mastered under the band's direction) would also be an activity, and releases of previously unreleased work (live, studio, or previously unreleased songs) by deceased artists would also qualify as new activity. It doesn't work.

As for a comparison of the Beatles, they are not regarded as having ceased in 1969 because recording of Let It Be continued into 1970. "I Me Mine" was entirely recorded in 1970 by 3 Beatles.

Regarding changes to say "present", there has been a huge quantity of changes, reverts, and vandalism today, as a result of Richard's death. Too many to sort through. But you are right, we have agreed to not state that PF are on hiatus, and brief reunions should not affect the end date. You would be right to revert any changes in that regard.

I also removed your use of references to make a comment instead of a citation, just because it's an improper use of the tag, and not to censor content. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I still object to "1994" I will let it rest. Just this much: the difference to your examples is that PF has never called it quits or even died. "Is there anybody ..." poses a tricky problem but the release was almost twenty years after the recording, not just round the corner.

I also disagree with your last bit: to use a footnote as a explanatory note is is no way improper. It was an attempt to explain why the section had 1995 (the same applies for 1994 too) as an end date and not "present" in the case of Nick Mason and Dave Gilmour and not "2008" for Richard Wright. Of course I can live without that explanation - we'll just have to see when the next reader comes along and insists to portray it otherwise. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure that will happen! But a footnote formatted as a citation won't stop them. Some users have tried inserting a hidden HTML-like comment to explain something, but not everyone likes them, and they often get removed. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

PS. I have no idea what copy and paste you are talking about. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here it is again, then: Past versions of the page have said 1994, 1995, 1996, 2001, 2005, and the present. Picking the date that the band worked on compiling a live album from recordings made in 1994, is no more valid than any of the reasons given for other dates. Early in this discussion, I posted: "(Pulse's) release is not a band activity", Tkd73 concurred with: "If PF recorded new material for (Echoes)... or toured in support of the release, then yes they could be considered active", Tom Green concurred with: "I am delighted with what it says now. 1994 is the last year they were active. The infobox is designed to give at-a-glance facts to the casual reader. 'Years active' is basically touring or recording... Anything that needs to be mentioned such as compilations should be noted in the article." Consensus was clearly reached. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have trouble with the idea of declaring Pink Floyd to have ended as they have not said so themselves, as an entity. As far as I am aware, the entity Pink Floyd still exists, with members David Gilmour and Nick Mason, minus Wright. While likely that they will never work again, until the band state that they are through, they are not, for the present time. David's statement that a Pink Floyd reunion "categorically won't happen" [10] is certainly of note, but Roger Waters had stated that Pink Floyd were finished at one time, until Gilmour, Mason, then Wright, started it up again. The Beatles are widely considered to have existed from 1960 to 1970. After John Lennon quit the band in 1969, they still existed, until their official, public break-up in April 1970. Until Pink Floyd (not David Gilmour) say they are finished, they are not. "It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings." Artvandelay (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Lennon did not leave the Beatles in 1969, though he effectively detached himself and announced his intention to leave. George Harrison had left for some time in 1969. In 1970, Paul McCartney openly left the band which then effectively ended. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I know this is the wrong page for this... :) ...Lennon did indeed leave the Beatles in September 1969, but it was kept a secret because they were renegotiating their record contract, and he didn't want his departure to negatively affect that. See the John Lennon article. George's departure in 1969 was only for 2 weeks in January, during the Get Back rehearsals; he was back with the group for Abbey Road and Let It Be recording sessions, the latter continuing into January 1970. The temporary departures of George and Ringo (latter in 1968) were also kept secret and not revealed until years or maybe decades later. We now return you to Pink Floyd... --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one can leave a band "in secret". Str1977 ^(talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - the band continues to exist until they say they don't, or until only one (or none) is left alive. Also note that Pink Floyd discography is currently not aligned with Wikipedia's determination that the band ceased in 1994. Earthlyreason (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not WP's determination "that the band ceased in 1994". The article states that they ceased to be active. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Points for and against this have been argued many times, and both sides have a point. See the "cut and paste" paragraph a little above this one for some points from the other side. Note that "the infobox is desinged to give at-a-glance facts" that are covered in more detail in the article. Both interpretations are thoroughly explained there, and the question is just which way to summarize it in the infobox. Remember that the field is called "years active". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you in that the band is inactive or on some sort of purgatorial hiatus, but until Pink Floyd state that they no longer exist, they still do. That being said, shouldn't the tenses of the article reflect that Pink Floyd, the entity, still exists, and is, at the same time, inactive? For example, instead of "Pink Floyd were an English rock band from Cambridge." it should be "Pink Floyd are an English rock band from Cambridge." Artvandelay (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The article did say "are" until yesteday. Because of Wright's death, Pink Floyd articles are being altered left and right with little changes to indicate Pink Floyd will never play again, which is an impulsive edit that ignores the fact PF have played without Wright before. Feel free to change it back, but I was going to wait a few days for the edits to die down. I suspect there will be a big clean-up of unnecessary edits next week. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the moment I've made that edit, and I have edited the page-bottom template. I guess it will be a few days before the Wikipedia Hive Mind decides how to address Pink Floyd. Artvandelay (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not long ago, someone pointed out that the infobox instructions say that when a band is no longer considered active (when it has an end date in the "years active" field), all memebers should be listed under the "past members" parameter. I have reverted your change to keep the box in sync according to its usage rules. Someone else reverted your change to the bottom of page template. The decision of how to list names in these boxes has been established, and changes to them get reverted. The status of whether members are living or dead does not affect either list, but in the last 24 hours both lists have been changed multiple times in response to Wright's death. For those who are changing these boxes for other reasons, now is not the time, and it's all been discussed and decided upon anyway. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for leaving "Pink Floyd are...", for now, anyway. Artvandelay (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

Why theres is only 2 images? --Standfest (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Because if we add anything that may not be free use, Big Brother will get us. Zazaban (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, images have to comply with WP:FAIR. And no one has submitted images that passed that policy. Lots of people have stolen images from the internet and claimed themselves as the source. But false images are quickly deleted so we have to hold out that someone who was a fan of the band, who just happened to take a picture of them, becomes a Wiki editor and allows Wikipedia to use them. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think things are too strict currently. Zazaban (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Strict=trustworthy encyclopedia. Not strict=poor quality amateur fansite. A Wikipedia with no images is still more valid than a project overloaded with stolen copyvio. Leave the stolen content to the fansites and webzines and keep Wikipedia on the homourable side of quality. This page needs images. But not cluttered up with non-fair-use covers/screenshots or images used without permission. Flickr is a magnet for stolen photos. Lets not lower Wikipedia standards down to the level of that copyvio sewer. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They're just images, I don't see how bad it can be to have a few more images. Things don't need to be so black and white. Zazaban (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all about staying legal and staying verifiable. Wikipedia, no matter how hard working/dedicated editors contribute to it, is a still a coffee talk joke that has zero respect among educators. It is that way because of all the copyvio littered throughout. 2.5 million articles on English Wikipedia and 2.4 million of them are pure shit. This article is a struggling FA quality article. It had no problem being promoted back in the day. But if I were to re-nom it right now... it would lose its FA status pretty quick... mainly due to the changes that have been made to the article in the past year. The one good thing that can still be said about it... is that diligent editors have kept it clean of ill-gotten pics. What is a "just image"??? Would you like someone to came and drive your "just a car" away from your parking lot while you're working??? Not likely. An image is legal property. They can't be added to the project without the consent of the photographer. Many bad/irresponsible editors haven't figured that out yet. And that's why "Wiki" has yet to become a respected "pedia" The Real Libs-speak politely 00:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comparing a few pixels to a car is a bit ridiculous. Zazaban (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not when you own those pixels, and ownership of them is how you make a living. But the rules exist not just for the benefit of the copyright owners, but also for the benefit of the Wikipedia foundation, who are trying to protect themselves from being sued over the accusation that they make no effort to control copyright violations on their site. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody asked the band or its agent or generous XYZ photo agency if they would donate an image or two to fair use? Earthlyreason (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Klose

Bob Klose was never in Pink Floyd. He was in the T-Set and The Pink Floyd Sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.153.148 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Pink Floyd Sound is a variant of Pink Floyd, so it's okay. But I would like to see a more detailed timeline that documents exactly when early members arrived and left. I suspect some of the date ranges in the "personnel" section are guesses. It's possible the exact dates are lost to history. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would question whether The Pink Floyd Sound is a variant on either The Pink Floyd or Pink Floyd. The latter two were indeed used as variants, but the word Sound was dropped altogether in (?)1965. The Pink Floyd Sound was however a variant for The Tea Set with which it was alternated. In my opinion The Pink Floyd or Pink Floyd officially started once the band had agreed to use the name [The} Pink Floyd officially, which is quite sometime after had Klose left (1965). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubileeclipman (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he should be removed, as he did not contribute to the sound of the band, he did not write any material, and he is not on any recordings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.70.164 (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He is on some recordings, I've heard him. And just because somebody didn't do much doesn't mean they weren't a member. Stu Sutcliffe was a member of The Beatles. Zazaban (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rick Wright Leaving and Rejoining

Rick Wright did not legally rejoin Pink Floyd until 1990, in the "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" album he is listed as a session musician not a member of Pink Floyd. He was also paid $10,000 per show during 1987-1989 before rejoining in 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.153.148 (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please cite a source. Artvandelay (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Try "Inside Out" by Nick Mason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.153.148 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and is another item that is continually changed and reverted. Wright was not declared a member of Pink Floyd on the credits of A Momentary Lapse of Reason, but he was declared to have rejoined as a full member on the tour which began the month that album was released (September 1987) and onward. The alternate legal date of his rejoining the "corporation" of Pink Floyd is interesting, but does not change the announced and publicly recognized date of his return to membership in the group. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If we took the 1990 date as Rick Wright again becoming a member, we would also have to give 1978 as the date he was thrown out. But de facto he did play with the Floyd until 1981 and again since 1987. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Start date (among other things)

As if we weren't done with haggling over Pink Floyd's end of activity date... :) a couple of sections above this one ("Bob Klose"), I commented that the early history of the band is lacking a good timeline, and wondered if joining and departing dates in the personnel section are correct. Sometimes it helps to actually read the external reference articles. According to the "Pink Floyd Online" site, which I think most of us would regard as reasonably reliable, the group were still using other names like Sigma 6 as late as Autumn 1966, so the first use of The Pink Floyd Sound must have come near the end of that year. Our article currently shows 1965 as the group's start date, because we believed this was when they started using the name. The aritcle also says Bob Close (our article, template, etc. spells him Klose) joined in 1966 (our article has him leaving in 1965). And Syd Barrett himself didn't join until late 1966, which gives weight to claiming Pink Floyd formed in that year, since it surely wasn't Pink Floyd until Syd joined. Read it and weep!

http://www.pinkfloydonline.com/history1.html

Now before we go changing the article, I suggest we look around at the other sources we are using (including Nick Mason's book, which I don't have) and see what jibes with the online site, and what doesn't. And check other sites too, keeping in mind that some of them probably get their info from us. I think I'll stay out of editing this for now, though I will still revert changes made without citation, or are controversial, or dubious. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, reading the external article further, I see it has many typos and spelling mistakes, so I won't put much weight on their spelling of Bob Klose's name. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the souce for "Syd joined only in 1966"? It is not in the linked article (and Bob Close isn't either).

BTW, the issue of the name and the issue of when PF was founded are not identical, especially if they used two names simultaneously for a while. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and the linked article only leads us back to WP so it is not a source at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize it's problematic; that's why I'm saying we shouldn't jump in and change our article to match. But it does contain a lot of detail our article is missing. The point is, there may be better information about the timeline than what our article states, and it should be investigated. I'm not sure what you mean by the article leading back to Wikipedia, when the information is completely different. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom of the pinkfloydonline article says 'From Wikipedia'. --Ged UK (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, a Wikipedia editor had a cow today when I added a couple of sentences about Richard Wright's passing in the opening section of Pink Floyd's page. Next thing I know, I get a message saying that my additions could constitute as "vandalism". Huh??? All I did was add *two frigging sentences* about Richard Wright's death, and how it's now highly unlikely that Pink Floyd will ever do anything again. THAT constitutes vandalism??? Sheesh!!! As a fan & user of Wikipedia, I'm just trying to help improve the various articles as best as I can with my knowledge of things that are close to me, like music & movies. But to be accused of "vandalism" when all I'm trying to do is strengthen the articles....I find that really, really offensive. You Wikipedia guys don't want to use my two sentences about Richard Wright and Pink Floyd? Fine with me. But DO NOT accuse me of "vandalism".AL9000 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That was probably an automated response. Zazaban (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Intro

"Pink Floyd are an English rock band from Cambridge". I dont like this mainly because its inaccurate and maybe a touch too specific. A good proportion of its members were born there, but really Pink Floyd were a London-based act. Ummagumma23 (talk)

Cambridge#Music identifies Pink Floyd as Cambridge's most notable band. Everyone remembers the Beatles as being from Liverpool, and that has established the imporance of stating where bands are from. "From" means what it says. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

One Off Reunions

Why is it listed 2003-2007? There was no performance in 2004. I changed it to 2003, 2005-2007, but someone reverted it right back to 2003-2007. Tkd73 15:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because 2003-2007 is a period, during which there were one-off reunions, The band were not reunited for four years; nor were they reunited in 2003 and then for two years from 2005. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I know, the last one-off reunion was at Live 8 in 2005. It should be 2003-2005. While I do agree that some members played together in 2006 and 2007, it was never the quatuor (Gilmour-Mason-Waters-Wright) nor even the later-years trio (Gilmour-Mason-Wright) together, but only Gilmour-Wright or Gilmour-Mason or Waters-Wright, for example.

CielProfond (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was sure that they all were together at some point last year... Zazaban (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

According to our own article, Gilmour + Wright + Mason performed together in May 2007. To be technical: even if there were a concert where only two were present, we should remember the official band membership on A Momentary Lapse of Reason was Gilmour + Mason, so if those two performed together, it would be a reforming of an official past line-up of PF. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I had overlooked that part, though I admit now that I had read it here (!) in the past. CielProfond (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing article

Every Pink Floyd song has an article. This may or may not be justified, but editors have built all these articles some time ago as a complete set, and there seems to be approval for this. Today, one article, Chapter 24 was turned into a redirect to the album from which it comes, and marked "not notable" with reference to WP:NSONGS in the edit summary. As it happens, I've been thinking that article could be expanded, and now I have restored it and done so, adding a comparison of the lyrics to chapter 24 of the I Ching. This was done on the fly, in response to the article's removal; I really don't know much about the I Ching, and someone who does could undoubtably improve it. The question is, does User:Wolfer68 intend to remove other Pink Floyd song articles? If so, could he tell us in advance, and give us an opportunity to see if the article can be improved first? (And could someone else take the next one, please?) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd, a non-active rock band comprising David Gilmour and Nick Mason...

Wouldn't it just be easier to say PF were an English rock band...? 81.23.56.53 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That hasn't been there for very long, it was probably added in the last couple of hours. I removed it. Zazaban (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The are/were choice is one of the most reverted changes in the article; it gets changed and reverted several times a month, despite the warnings about it. Someone was trying to do an end-run around the situation. Nevertheless, the issue has been debated at length (and more than once), and consensus is that "are" should remain until such time as Gilmour declares there will never be another get-together. (As opposed to Led Zeppelin stating they would never do work under that name again after John Bonham died, and then, er, changing their minds years later.) Considering that Gilmour and Waters are now more friendly toward each other than they once were, future reunions are not out of the question, and neither is the possiblity of Gilmour and Mason doing more work as Pink Floyd. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How to end the are/were and is/are "games"

Hi,

In the past few weeks, I have seen countless switches between are and were, and between is and are, according to whether the editing wikipedian thinks that Pink Floyd still exists as a band or not, and whether the wikipedian uses British English or American English, respectively.

I believe that it would be much simpler, and time-saving, to put some kind of banner on top of the article, mentioning that we say "Pink Floyd are" and not "Pink Floyd is" or "Pink Floyd were". The warning in the code does not seem to be seen by people who edit the article, so it is not enough and not working.

Any opinions?

CielProfond (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

--- I, totally agree to put a standart on those uses, in some way. However, I've never seen that kind of banner in wiki, so we have to figure out some other way Damaged brain (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen templates like this added and then removed from other articles; they don't last long because there are objections to this solution (though I've never found an official rule against their use). Furthermore, during the time they were up, they were ignored. If editors are ignoring instructions right next to the text they edit, there is no hope. They know very well what they are doing, and they do it regardless, hoping the edit will not be noticed. The only thing to do is keep articles on the watchlist and revert when it happens. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin London / Cambridge

The band's origin is documented as being London. This is not disputed, and I have supplied two sources for this in the article - including Nick Mason's book. The band are, however, commonly associated with Cambridge as well as London, and it would be appropriate to give some space to that association. I have introduced the notion in the intro that Syd was from Cambridge, though have not taken that any further. I am wondering on the importance of this association and how far one can go with it, and in what manner. Sources do deal in depth with Floyd's London associations, the clubs they played, and how they were a vital part of the London scene in the 60s, so mention of the importance of their London days would be appropriate and relevant. But sources do not deal so much with the Cambridge association, as the band didn't develop there, and were not a part of the Cambridge scene - most Cambridge information for individual band members would be dealt with in the relevant band members articles. However, Cambridge is linked via the song "Grantchester Meadows", and there is a statement in the article that "The Scarecrow" was inspired by the Fenlands folk music (though this statement is unsourced), so some references to Cambridge can be spread throughout the article, and this might be better than having a Cambridge section. Thoughts? SilkTork *^YES! 03:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed the infobox from Cambridge to London, but you are asking about changing the article to give more emphasis to Cambridge, which I found a little confusing. In looking at the group's history, I agree the origin field should say London. (But a reference does not belong in the infobox, and I've never seen any reference point to "Google book search" which looks for a phrase in a book, and can certainly pick out something out of context. You need to have access to more than this before using a book as a reference. The half-a-sentence that your link takes us to, is not an acceptable reference, because I can't see the greater context of the paragraph.)

I'm also concerned about duplicating the "years active" in the opening sentence. We have had so many reverts, and even heated discussions (from people who refused to understand about consensus) over the question of when the band formed (1964 pre-Pink Floyd or 1965 when the first used the PF name), and when they became active (some 6 different years are preferred by various editors for various reasons), and the question of how we can have an end date to their range of activity and still say "Pink Floyd are..." instead of "...were..." in the opening sentence, and how to list personnel in relation to all of that. (The answer is, we have reviewed the infobox instructions, and standards used for other groups, and found the best combination that seems to follow the rules and match standards.) But since we still have to revert these changes about once a week, it almost seems to be fanning the flames to repeat the range of years in the opening sentence, and to declare them inactive right from the start, in the very sentence that also declares them to be a current group. They have been getting together every few years for a one-off performance in the current decade, so they aren't necessarily permenantly inactive, but neither are they active. I think past talk page discussions on this, and the archives, are long enough to fill a book, and I hope this doesn't open up another 2 chapters. I would really like to see the article kept as it is, in this regard, unless there are compelling reasons why the current article (before you changed it) has a problem, and they should NOT be the same reasons that were discussed before (and I'm betting any reason you could come up with, HAS been discussed before). No offence, but this article is really a pain to maintain, and some of us are hoping to keep it stable and prevent further edit wars until such time as something new develops in Pink Floyd's history. (Richard Wright's recent death led to another edit war hassle, but that has fortunately calmed down.)

I'm going to take the ref out of the infobox (but leave "London" in), and fix the apparent ambiguity of the opening sentence by taking out the date range (but I'm not really removing any info; it's still there in the infobox and explained further down in the article).

Getting back to your question about how to mention Cambridge: Barrett and Gilmour got started in various Cambridge groups, but these precede the various groups our aritlce has identified as the origins of Pink Floyd, and all those latter groups were based in London. Waters is also from Cambridge, but from what I've read, he was just a fan of music and not a musician, and it's not clear if he was in Syd's and David's circle of friends, although they apparently knew each other. I agree this should be worked into the article. Hope this is some help to you. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not have both places in the infobox? I've seen other places do that. Zazaban (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

While individual members began working in Cambridge before they became involved with Pink Floyd, the band itself originated in London. Wright and Mason were not from Cambridge. I think Cambridge was put in the infobox because Syd started out there, but he was not an original member of the bands that preceded PF. So I'm in agreement with SilkTork that only London belongs in the infobox. But more about the Cambridge connection should be added to the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Barrett, Waters and Gilmour - the three "leaders" of Pink Floyd - were all from Cambridge. Many of the band's associates - including Dick Parry, Storm T. and some roadies - were from Cambridge. The band have identified more with Cambridge than London in their material (Granchester Meadows, High Hopes & video, etc.). While the may have had their early concerts in London, and lived there when the band started, Cambridge's significance should not be underplayed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Are we in agreement, then? (Leave London in the infobox, but put more about their Cambridge roots into the body of the article?) Or are you saying Cambridge should be in the infobox? I'm not clear on that. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear, The band was founded in London, but its origins were clearly in Cambridge. The infobox (perhaps unhelpfully) uses the latter term. Perhaps the entry should read "Cambridge (but founded in London)" or just "Cambridge/ London", or something like that? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The infobox instructions say "the city where the group was founded"; I believe the rest is intended for solo artists rather than groups. Infoboxes for Syd and others should say Cambridge, but it still seems like Pink Floyd's should say London. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then it might be better to take the mater to the infobox talk page, to try to get a resolution to the disparity between that instruction and the label. It may be that others have already worked around this issue, for different bands. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Waters socialised, and played music, with Barrett while at school. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Knight that London should remain in the Infobox as that is what the sources say, and I agree that editors should look to considering how best to include the Cambridge connection in the article. I have slightly amended the lead sentence to remove the foregrounding of London, as London appears a little later in the intro anyway where it is dealt with in more context. I wouldn't object to London being returned to the first sentence, though I personally feel it's not needed and can be seen as asserting the London connection over the Cambridge one rather too strongly.

At the same time I have slightly toned down the guidance notes within the body of the article. This might be seen as a contentious edit, and I'm willing to discuss it. My view is that articles progress best with encouragement to editors to get involved and interact - even if this does mean having to deal repeatedly with certain issues. If the same issues keep returning it could indicate that the article needs improvement - better explanations and referencing for example. Battles over American / British usage are tiresome, but will occur time and again. Those who read the guidance and ignore it, will also ignore direct commands not to edit, merely seeing that as a red rag to a bull! However, I appreciate that people who keep an eye on articles can get tired of seeing the same debates over and over again and may feel that the last word has been said. I'm not convinced, however, that the last word has been said, and a fresh pair of eyes can be a useful thing. It's just a question of being tolerant and patient and looking into why people keep returning to the same issues. SilkTork *^YES! 16:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I predict this toning down is going to lead to trouble. Some editors seem to think that referring to the talk page means they can make their change, THEN talk about it. Wikipedia's rules state that when an edit is controversial (i.e. has been made and reverted before), it should be discussed and agreed upon before changing it again. This needs to be stated in the comment. I will look at whether "do not change this" can be toned down, but it should not be removed. Don't want to sound possessive, but I don't think you've been here (at this article) long enough to see the problems we've had to deal with, and so it might not be appropriate to be going in and changing policy without discussion. Sometimes this article has come close to becoming one of those pages that need to be protected, where edits can only made by an admin, and any changes have to be "requested". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I agree I haven't been around to face the conflicts, and I don't know the full history. However, I have worked on other articles which have faced intense edit wars, and it is uncommon to find such in text commandments to not edit an article. My feeling is that such commandments are against the spirit and founding principles of Wikipedia - our exhortation is to be bold and edit right now, and some of the comments on User:Jimbo_Wales's page sum that up better than I can. I do get involved now and again in conflict resolution, and I would be more than happy to help out here in future if there are edit wars or tiresome disagreements. Debate and discussion being the Wiki way. Regards and keep up the good work. SilkTork *^YES! 19:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope I haven't come across as discouraging editing of the article. There are still places where it could be improved, especially regarding the group's early days. But when it comes down to the choice of one particular word or statistic that has been discussed and agreed upon (and reasons given for it are on the talk page), and it is still getting changed regularly (often with no explanation), stern warnings are required to tell the editor that (a) they are not the first to try to change this, (b) there is a place where we have documented why it is what it is, and (c) it's going to be reverted. We should definitely use such comments sparingly, and consider taking them out if the issue goes away after a while. Another example is a similar warning about 200 vs. 250 million in sales; I suspect it was one person with a changing IP who was making that change about a hundred times over the course of a year. The statistic is followed by a link to a page with sales numbers that match what the article says, so the comment says the number is not to change unless a new citation is added, which that editor never did. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

...from the previous paragraph, please continue below...

The infobox instructions say "the city where the group was founded"; I believe the rest is intended for solo artists rather than groups. Infoboxes for Syd and others should say Cambridge, but it still seems like Pink Floyd's should say London. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Then it might be better to take the mater to the infobox talk page, to try to get a resolution to the disparity between that instruction and the label. It may be that others have already worked around this issue, for different bands. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep both Cambridge and London, maybe we can put "Cambridge (origins), London (foundation)". Just my opinion.---Doktor Who (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I read it, the instructions are saying the field should state the origin of the band, rather than the people in it (this discussion being a good example of the distinction)... BUT these instructions are only guidelines, and we can modify them if it makes sense for this artist. I'm changing my vote (again!) and going with the Doktor's suggestion of including both places, but I don't think it's necessary to insert the parts in brackets. Too much clutter, and the infobox is supposed to be a point-form summary. The article can explain why there are two locations in this entry. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, yup!--Doktor Who (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. (BTW, "consensus" and "per" are in the dictionary, and the "c" word has strong importance in Wikipedia policy; just saying this to no-one in particular, y'understand.) :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning, it's off-topic: I'm not complaining against the "collective agreement" policy itself, I just realize that many WP users are using words taken from formal English in the most exagerate way. Before 2004, the web and WP itself didn't contain so many (many, yes too many) occurrences of "per" instead of "for" and "for each". I'd say, that before 2004 I haven't ever read such mis-use in books and newsmagazines. Is it all just a secret, hidden admiration for Daniel Jackson? --Doktor Who (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Shh! Don't talk about the cabal's secret Stargate obsession! Zazaban (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand (though don't know if I agree; it isn't in the same class as "thou" and "hence"), but what would you say in place of "p*r c*ns*ns*s" (censoring phrase since you don't like seeing it) that doesn't take up a lot more space? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

'By Agreement' ? Zazaban (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, by agreement sounds very good. :) (thou and hence are nice words to me). --Doktor Who (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we have consensus, then? (Ouch!) :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Former members

shouldn't the band's formation at breakup be listed as 'current members' like the beatles and nirvana's article do?

and also, shouldn't it be "Were" instead of are... last time i checked, they broke up... making the band in past tense.. or is it something freaky with british english? - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 06:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Luke. There are many issues with details about the Pink Floyd article, and related articles, where a case could be made for several different choices, such as "are" vs. "were". Often, we get several attempts per week to change these specifics. Many of these details have been discussed at length and decided upon. There is a lot of reading to be done on this page, and its archived discussions, before making major changes, to ensure you are not changing things that will be reverted. These details are reverted any time they are changed by someone who does not appear to be aware of the history of our discussions. If you want to re-open discussions, you are welcome to do so, but consensus must be reached before the change is made.

To give a quick answer to your question, Pink Floyd have never announced an official break-up, and have re-united briefly several times since their last album in 1994. When Richard Wright died recently, we had editors come in and change "are" to "were" several times per day for two weeks, making the claim that Pink Floyd can't possibly reunite again. However, versions of Pink Floyd without Wright have existed in the past. Therefore we have decided to keep "are" for the time being.

I see you have also changed the date ranges for membership of the band. This has also been discussed at length, and consensus is that even though the name Pink Floyd was used as of 1965, members were working with each other as other band names in 1964, as described in detail in the article, therefore we list 1965 as the start range of the existence of Pink Floyd, but 1964 (where applicable) in the personnel section. Also note that Waters switched from guitarist to bass guitarist in 1964, so your change of "guitar (1965)" is inaccurate. You also changed one range to read "1965-1965".

I will also be reverting the album sub-sections. We have separate articles for each album, and if we were to have these section headings, we should have "see main article" links above each. This isn't really necessary, because the article has a short discography section with links to their main albums, should a reader wish to go through them. The Pink Floyd article should be a history of the band, not their albums. Perhaps we already discuss the albums too much in this article. But since the article is intended to document band history at the time of these albums, and not the albums themselves, I think the headings become misleading. Most albums have only one paragraph each, and paragraph separation is adquate.

If I have other issues to mention, I'll come back and post more. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opnion they make the article look better and make it easier for navigation, so i'm adding the subheadings back in. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your reply doesn't address the concerns I have that putting in these headings encourages a change in topic; these sections now appear to cover the albums rather than the history of the band at the times these albums were made, which is unnecessary, because we already have separate articles for the albums. Not all of the history is about the albums, and there are many instances you put in a heading, and some of the paragraphs beneath it have nothing to do with the heading. How are you going to address that problem? We have left each other some comments on our user talk pages, but I'll take this back to the article's talk page. You asked me if it would be okay to re-insert the headings if you add the "main" template to each, to point to the album articles. I made that suggestion only because you seem to be insistent on adding the headings back without answering my concerns, but I'd really prefer you think about what I've said. You also say you don't recall removing the word "The" from The Dark Side of the Moon; here is the edit: [11]. With all due respect, you don't seem to be checking the effects of your edits (I pointed out some other problems on your talk page, changes you have made that may be unintentional), and you have stated on this page, and in edit summaries, that certain issues have not been discussed on the article's talk page, when in fact they have been discussed to death! I recommend you check and review a little more. When I edit, I almost always use the "show preview" and "show changes" buttons, and even then I frequently miss something, but at least I'm pretty sure I know what I'm editing. Getting back to the headings issue, I'd like to invite other watchers of this page to give an opinion before these are added again. As I've stated on your page, when a change is challenged, it is appropriate to try to reach consensus on the talk page rather than going back and putting in the changes again; this leads to an edit war, which we should attempt to avoid. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, Luke... You are an experienced editor, so I hate to pick away at your edits, but your latest do the following:

• put back the disputed headings again
• revert a recent edit that changes "producers" to "managers" which looks correct to me
• title the album Dark Side of the Moon without "The" in front (previously discussed)
• change the style of quotes around Household Objects to put it in double quotes instead of italics (the third time you've done this, previously discussed on your page)
• Changed a note to small text (as previously discussed on this page, small text is to be avoided, it is hard to read and there is no need to reclaim physical space; the text is not within any kind of chart or box)
• taken out 2 "fact" tagged sections prematurely (reasons for not doing this discussed previously on your page)
• put in about 6 new "fact" tags, many of which I can't figure out; for example you tagged "1996 saw the release of Richard Wright's second solo album, Broken China, where he collaborated again with lyricist Anthony Moore." What are you challenging? The sentence contains a wikilink to the album which verifies the year, the lyricist, and the fact that the album exists. Same with your tags on the Piper 40th anniv issue, the 2007 reunion, and the Polar Music prize; all are referenced by thw wikilinks. Unless I'm misunderstanding which part you are challenging? Other tagged sentences with vague statements can be reworded for improvement; a lack of citation isn't really the problem.

I'm going to revert again. If you wish to fix these problems and re-revert, at the very least please start with a revert of my revert instead of doing multiple edits; you seem to be doing a lot of unnecessary rework. But before you do that, please explain why you are making these changes (if they are intentional) and let us work out the correct change before you edit the article again. I want to get this right, and I do value the work that you and others do to improve the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm Just trying to help, as for the household objects thing, i clearly typed ' 2 times. I am 100 percent sure i did not type " i even went back and did it again, you must be misreading it. As for removing the from dark side of the moon, in my edit, when i reverted back to the old version, i readded "The" to it. I'll be more careful this time, but if i screw up, dont' revert my entire edit, just remove what i did wrong. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 22:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And as for the fact tags, i added them to every paragraph without a citation. They need citations. It doesn't matter if it's wikilinked, the last time i checked you can't have wikipedia articles as your source. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 22:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the lead needs some more sources, I know you don't have to have sources in the lead, but i think it would really be helpful.. you can set it up so you have 1 source point to 2 different things by using <ref name="name"> ref </ref> and then putting in <ref name="Name" /> in the lead. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 23:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now i see what you're talking about for the household objects section, at first i thought you were talking about the subheading. anyways, fixed it. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

and as for the fact tags there was one place where it was sourced, but the source said nothing about what's written in the article (something about getting an award from a king of somewhere...) - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 23:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And also, somemost of the references need work, so i'm gonna be working on converting them to use the Cite Web template. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: i don't think this is a reliable source because it seems to be a unnoficial fansite and last time i checked those aren't reliable sources. I'll try and find an alternate source. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 23:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a RS, at the very bottom it says: This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. and since anyone can edit wikipedia and add any claims to it, we need to find another source for the year they were formed. I'm removing the source and adding a fact tag. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 23:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I just finished cleaning up the references. There's one site in particular that every link to it in this article is a dead link, and i tagged those. I Noticed this was made a Featured article a while back, and the standards are much more strict nowadays, there needs to be more references in the reunion paragraphs, and some other places i've tagged. If those concerns are not met, i could see this article being delisted, i've seen alot of articles that are far better than this with 100's of sources that are delisted for having unsourced statements. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 00:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The headings pertaining to each album's era should be removed or reworked, changed into something that is able to describe the band's work and their mood in a given period of time. Nothing personal Luke, most of your edits here are good.--Doktor Who (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good examples are David Sylvian's, and Robert Fripp's articles.Doktor Who (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation tags clean-up

Let's not edit war about this, please! I removed some "citation needed" tags because I couldn't figure out what needs to be cited, and thought this edit would not be controversial. Instead of reverting the whole lot back and forth, let's look at each one and see what's needed. Feel free to insert comments under each point:

• Year of formation: is this really in dispute? There are many reference books on Pink Floyd used in this article, and they all cover this info. Also, I disagree with previous suggestions that fan websites are not allowed as citations on Wikipedia. I think this is taking the guidelines beyond what was intended. Fan websites may not be the most preferred sources, but they are not blacklisted, and most important, they are online. And sometimes they are much better references than "corporate" websites that attempt to cover thousands of rock bands. Considering the level of information in the article, I don't think the year can reasonably be questioned.
• "In 1995, band leader Gilmour ceased planning new tours for Pink Floyd after their "Division Bell" tour." Is the date being disputed? The tour ended in 1994. If someone is bothered by the claim that the decision was made in 1995, we could take out the year, and/or put "in 1994" at the end of the sentence.
• "group hug" picture: I suppose the fame of the picture is POV, but is it really so problematic? The article tells me that the picture has had wide distribution. I don't see a problem, or a need for a citation to confirm someone else's opinion that it is "one of the most famous images of Live 8".
• Reason for Mason's refusal to join Waters in 2006 (working on solo album): I agree this should have a citation.
• "the final time this configuration of Pink Floyd would ever perform together" - is this the portion that is being disputed, or is it something earlier in the paragraph? Maybe a citation for the whole paragraph is being requested; I'm not certain.
• Polar Music Prize: As I recall, the only part being questioned was the statement that the prize was presented by the king of Sweden, but this is spelled out in the Polar Music Prize article. I don't think anything more is needed.

End of list --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation tags are not for marking disputed facts, but facts for which citations need to be provided. The tags should not be removed until the citations are in place. Other articles on WP are not adequate citations. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying (although the fact tag is often used to mark disputed info, but I don't see these two reasons as being in conflict); however if the tag doesn't make sense, it should not be there. It doesn't make sense to say that once one editor inserts a tag, it must not be removed until a citation is provided, because that editor could have made the wrong decision in inserting the tag. As I've said several times, I can't figure out what part of the info the tag applies to in some cases, and if the editor who inserted it isn't making that clear, then the request will never be addressed, and there is no point in keeping it. As for "other articles on WP are not adequate citations", it's a question of whether a wikilink (meaning "see this other article for more explanation about that") is an adequate method of pointing to basic facts about something. If it does so, then a citation is not required. This is not the same issue as to whether or not the wikilink is a citation. For example, the Polar Music Prize page explains that the ceremony is conducted by the King of Sweden, and that article as a whole is adequately sourced. We don't really need a citation before we mention the King again in this article. Given the structure of the two articles, it's not a factoid that requires citation here. I don't know if it's appropriate to point this out, but the user who put in the tags has been indefinitely banned from WP, and I believe he put these tags in because he was miffed that other changes he was making were reverted, and may have been trying to stir things up. I asked him many times to explain what he is requesting on the tags, and this was before his ban, but he did not reply. That's why I'm having trouble with the assertion that these tags, once added, can't be removed at this time. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre policy proposal

Genres in Pink Floyd articles are frequently changed (and almost as frequently reverted). It's time we had a policy about this. I have a proposal, but I'm going to put a lot of preamble first. (Sorry if this becomes long-winded, I'm sure it will be!)

• I'm a big proponent of discussing policy changes like this before implementing them, therefore, please wait for consensus before proceeding with changing articles to match these proposals.
• Genre changes tend to get kicked around like a football. Decision A gets changed to B, then to C, then to D, then unwittingly back to A. Wikipedia edits are supposed to gradually evolve toward a stable ideal; most genre changes do not, until a policy is brought in. Once a decision is made, we can feel free to revert changes and point to the policy in edit summaries.
• A few months ago, genre fields were removed from the infobox, then put back. There was a big controversy over this, and it's one where all sides had a point. Some opinions (which I agree with) expressed during these debates:

• Infoboxes are intended as a summary of the content in the article. If the genre field (or any field) has items which are not mentioned at all in the article, the field is being used improperly.
• An article can mention one genre in the infobox, and multiple sub- or additional genres in the body of the article. Many articles tend to do the opposite.
• Most of the time, one genre per infobox is sufficient. Some guidelines for picking the best genre out of many options: pick one which is the most all-encompassing, or which reflects the style of music the group is best known for (at the time of the album, if it's an album article). For example, progressive rock is a very wide field. It can include the experimentation of A Saucerful of Secrets, the fusion of orchestral and rock music in Atom Heart Mother, the sound collage found in The Dark Side of the Moon, and the folky songs on More. These sub-genres can be mentioned in the body of the article, and "progressive rock" can be a summary of them all, for the infobox. During the time of these albums, Pink Floyd were regarded as a progressive rock band, regardless of their dabbling in other genres on any given album, and this fact should also be a guide to the genre used for album articles, as long as there is no compelling reason why that categorization should be considered inappropriate for a particular album.

Considering the above, here is my proposal:

• Pink Floyd presented themselves as a psychedelic music band in 1967, and this term best fits their first album. This should be the only genre in the album infobox.
• In 1968, Pink Floyd changed into a progressive rock band, and this term best fits the albums for the remainder of their career. This should be the only genre in the album infobox.
• As A Saucerful of Secrets is a transition album, containing left-over material recorded with Syd Barrett, it would be appropriate to make an exception and list both genres in the infobox. The same would be true for compliations with a significant representation of Barrett and post-Barrett material.
• As for the main Pink Floyd article, it currently lists 4 genres: progressive rock, psychedelic rock, space rock, art rock. The first two are fine, and I like them in this order (best known and longest lasting first), even though it's not the chronological order. "Space rock" is disputable. Pink Floyd are often regarded as pioneers of space rock, but is it really true? I recall a quote from Roger Waters that dismisses "Interstellar Overdrive" as space rock; he says it's just an instrumental, and only received its connotation when it was given a title some time after it was written. Lyrics for "Astronomy Domine" and "Set the Controls for the Heart of the Sun" are definitely space rock, but can a large percentage of their work be so defined? For every song with spacey lyrics, you could probably find ten ordinary love songs. I have no objection to the genre being discussed in the body of the article, as it already is. As for "art rock", I suspect this is a label that was applied to Pink Floyd in their early days, but is regarded today as the roots of progressive rock. This is something that can be mentioned in the article, but is a duplication of information in the infobox. Therefore, I propose removing the latter two items, with an explanation of the "art rock" label added to the article.
• These proposals are intended for band and album articles only. Individual songs from albums can be in a completely different genre from the album as a whole, and it is not appropriate for us to have a general policy for this. (Although, we can have policies for individual songs, on song article talk pages.)

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Space rock" is one of those silly sub-sub genres that are essentially meaningless anyway. "Art rock" is only somewhat less silly as a genre, but has the added feature of being just plain wrong as applied to Pink Floyd. Caveat: in general I'm a minimalist here; if I had my 'druthers 95% of bands currently listed in dozens of sub-genres from "folk rock" to "proto-punk" to "nu-metal" would just be listed as "rock". But your proposal strikes me as reasonable. Good luck trying to get it to stick! Jgm (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the majority of PF albums already have the proposed genre(s), it's mostly a few of the earlier ones that would need to be changed. I haven't seen a big problem in reverting genre changes; most genre edits are done from anon IPs who don't come back to change it again, and are unlikely to want to come to this page to discuss it. As for space rock, there are a few bands who deliberately put science fiction in many of their lyrics, and it's an appropriate genre for those few. Re. art rock, I took a look at the article for the genre (always a helpful thing to do!) and PF clearly fits the definition; there is also a citation we can use in which a scholarly source identifies PF as an example of art rock. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin field revisited

Recently, the "origin" infobox field was changed from Cambridge, to Cambridge and London. This was the result of a discussion in which it was determined that not only Pink Floyd, but all the pre Pink Floyd bands mentioned in the article were based in London, but some members of the band were from Cambridge originally, and got started there, playing professionally in other bands not mentioned in the article. An argument against this decision, is that it doesn't seem to follow the infobox instructions for the use of this field. This was emphasized recently in a talk page discussion, see: Template talk:Infobox Musical artist#Origin and Hometown. Based on what is said on that page, our infobox should only state London. Comments? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the introduction relevant?

... because I consider myself a fan and even I had never heared from Bob Klose before. I think there's a whole lot of information in the introduction that is actually part of their origin. Consider the casual reader who is unfamiliar with the Floyd and wants to catch up briefly on what he's been missing. What good is it to him to learn about 'The Tea Set' and all that? I guess what I'm saying is: should the intro be streamlined? Mind you, this is a question, not criticism, so don't bring out your guns when you reply on this please.

--Helt91 (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does have a longer lead section than most, but the part you highlight is just one sentence about their roots before becoming famous, and is a small part of the lead's three paragraphs. Perhaps the second and third paragraphs could be reduced to a sentence or two. However, the lead is approximately the same length and scope as those for The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, both of which mention their pre-fame years. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least that's a good company to be in then ;-) --Helt91 (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A small technical question

I notice that just before the interwiki links at the bottom of the Pink Floyd article (creating links to Pink Floyd pages at Wikipedias in other languages), there is some code that marks which of those sites have had their Pink Floyd page as a featured article, and it looks like this: {{Link FA|de}}. The code is supposed to replace the square bullet with a gold star. I don't see any gold stars. There is nothing at Template:Link FA to indicate it's non-functional. It only works with the default monobook, but that's what I'm using. Does anyone see the stars? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Stars are what I see there. Maybe you have inadvertantly disabled something in your browser's preferences - I managed to inadvertantly hot key the pictures away in my browser last week and it took me nearly quarter of an hour to find where to uncheck the right box to set it straight.--Alf ^melmac 13:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing the normal square bullet instead of a star, so it's not a browser or image suppression problem. Anyway, it appears to be just me, I'm not concerned. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Musical style section needed

This is a huge and featured article about a fundamental band, but it lacks information about their music. What do you think about making one?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Critical reviews are usually very POV and not encyclopedic. They are certainly valuable, but do not belong on Wikipedia. That's why we invite external links to provide further resources in the form of professional review sites. If you think you can add some content that won't be problematic, feel free to add it, or you can preview it here first to see what we think, if you're not sure. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

History:Synopsis

Since there does appear to be a (growing) concensus that the Introduction, as it stood, was far too long, I have taken the liberty of moving the last two paragraphs to a new sub-section (Synopsis: 1964 to present) in the History section. They also appear to be more comfortable there since they are precicely that: a synopsis of the band's history rather than a synopsis of the band per se. Jubilee♫clipman 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it works better in the intro, but that's just me...javascript:insertTags('PinkFloyd69 (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)',,)

If there is growing consensus, I'll be darned if I can see it. The section titled "Is the introduction relevant?" had an objection, an observation that the lead is the same length and format (3 paragraphs of similar content) as in articles for the Beatles and Rolling Stones, and the original objector stating he was satisfied with that answer. I don't think either method is better than the other, or that there was a need for the change, but that, too, is just me. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd were formed in London in 1965 when Syd Barrett moved down from Cambridge and joined The Tea Set...

This is clearly either inaccurate usage or just plain wrong. Pink Floyd were not formed when Barrett joined the Tea Set, since the band continued to use that name for a few months before using the name The Pink Floyd Sound, suggested by Barrett. Futhermore, many fans - including myself - would consider the equating of The Tea Set/The Pink Floyd Sound with [The] Pink Floyd to be inaccurate. Arguably, Pink Floyd started when the band started to use that name exclusively (with or without The). The words could be changed to: Pink Floyd were formed in London in 1965, just after Barrett joined The Tea Set...; or: Pink Floyd were formed in London in 1965, after the band changed the name from "The Tea Set" to.... Other suggestions? Jubilee♫clipman 23:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The proposals and current wording have one problem in common: they do not state events in chronological order. They all discuss the name change to Pink Floyd first, and Syd Barrett joining the Tea Set second. The first thing we need to do is change the order of these events in the sentence. Aside from that, I don't agree that the sentence is wrong; its meaning is clear. We should be careful about expanding this sentence with an elaboration; it's just a synopsis of what is explained again (in the correct order) in the next section. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Innacuracy in main article

Within the main article the following statement is made:

'Pink Floyd had stopped issuing singles after 1968's "Point Me at the Sky" and was never a hit-single-driven group, but The Dark Side of the Moon featured a U.S. Top 20 single ("Money").

A single was taken off the 1972 'Obscured By Clouds" release.

77.86.5.17 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

After "Point me at the Sky," they stopped issuing singles IN THE U.K. Technically, you are correct.Father McKenzie (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, they resumed issuing singles in the UK in 1979. As for never being a "hit single driven group", what about the first 2 singles before the first album? They helped establish the group, and had some degree of fame in 1967. How about: 'Pink Floyd issued no singles in the UK between 1968 and 1979, abandoning any deliberate attempt to present themselves as a hit-single-driven group during those years, although "Money" from The Dark Side of the Moon was a U.S. top 20 single.' --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Better still, insert: "...although album tracks continued to be issued as singles in other countries, and..." --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My contributions

I am looking for feedback on my edits: moved two paragraphs in Intro to new subsection in article body [see discussion above]; commented certain passages with "Neutrality disputed", "Citation needed", etc (and added comments in the edit); proposed a change to a sentence by adding strike-through to original and underlining my replacement; and added strike-through to a redundant sentence. Since I am new to Wiki and on the advice of my new mentor - and since this is a featured article - I will stop editing for now. Feel free to revert (obviously) if you feel I have screwed up and I apologise if I have offended anyone! Jubilee♫clipman 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, seems a bit messy - should all be reverted - changing it might mean that it loses it status as a featured article. Just my 2 cents. Ummagumma23 (talk)

I'm not sure we need to revert everything (and it's probably not possible to automatically revert at this point), but I was surprised that a well established featured article should receive such an "overhaul" (so many edits in a short time, and not done to standard). The biggest problem was all the frivolous citation tags, which seem to mostly be a request for elaboration rather than highlighting actual problems. Improvements are good, but simply flagging (i.e. bookmarking) places where improvements could be made is not good. If you intended to make improvements in these spots yourself, you should keep notes to yourself and not in the article. Similarly, inserting comments explaining your thinking behind edits you have made, is not good. And strike-outs, underlining, etc. to "mark" sections are against standards.

I'm concerned about the citations especially, and will be removing them, but I will look at and consider each one before doing so, and leave in any that are really needed, but it's possible they will all go. I will also remove comments that don't belong, and any non-standard formatting that hasn't already been cleaned up. Anyway, thanks for coming to the talk page and discussing it. The only thing worse than controversial changes, is doing same and avoiding discussion, or being overly defensive about it, which are problems we've had on this article in the past. Please do stick around on Wikipedia, but consider avoiding big overhauls on major articles while you're "learning the ropes". Thanks! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I do agree that there are some POV statements that need cleaning up via rewording, but they are not serious enough to warrant a tag. Taking action by actually doing a rewording would have been preferable. I removed the POV tags because if someone wants to fix this problem, they should review the article and make their own decisions as to what needs to be fixed. Hope you're understanding about this (and if you are considering doing it yourself, the tags can still be found in editing history). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Knight and Ummagumma! My mentor said essentially the same: avoid featured articles while learning the ropes. I will not work here now. I still think that "meandering" is POV, though, as applied to (IIRC) The Narrow Way: it actually sounds like someones opinion of the structure rather than an actual description of it. There are several other places this happens, too. Jubilee♫clipman 08:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Further: The band would use this and future soundtrack recording sessions to produce work that may not have fit into the idea of what would appear on a proper Pink Floyd LP. - I'm not quite sure what this is supposed to mean and, IMHO, the grammar is not up to the standard of the rest of the article: suggest removing it if my addition (the very next sentence) says the same thing. Jubilee♫clipman 08:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss proposed changes on this page, then move them to the article when we reach agreement. Adjectives like "jarring" and "meandering" would be problematic if they were intended as criticism, but I think the editor was just trying to come up with the best words to describe the particular attributes associated with the group's work at that time. How would you reword the sentence to convey the same information with different wording that won't be misconstrued as criticism?

Regarding the other sentence about soundtracks, I think it refers to the fact that all non-soundtrack Pink Floyd albums are concept albums, with songs that flow and fit together, while soundtracks can contain lone pieces that don't fit in with proposed album concepts, nor with other tracks on the same album. More is a good example of this; the transitions of style and tone make for abrupt changes from track to track, especially when a hard rocker like "Nile Song" appears between softer folk pieces, which probably wouldn't be acceptable on other albums. It elaborates on why "critics tended to find the collection of the film's music patchy and uneven" (preceding sentence) and "fans dismissed this work" (latter sentence). I do have a problem with "fans dismissed this work" and "More (as fans usually call it)" because both are unsourced and probably unsourcable; it is therefore against standards to make vague claims about critical reception from fans. Furthermore, the album is often called More because that is the actual front cover title of the American edition. So this definitely needs to be changed! I invite you to propose a replacement for this little group of three sentences on this page, and we'll comment on it before changing the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if I can express some POV here that certainly wouldn't be acceptable in the article, I think More is a great album and contains some of the group's important songs of the time, especially on side 1. But I also think it's an album that does not make a good first impression, so that if a "fan" or critic gives it one listen and then files and forgets, they are likely to dismiss it. When I see "fans dismissed this work", I think to myself, "uninformed fans dismissed this work", and would want to address this, but without saying all that I've just said! If you agree, how can a proposed wording be consistent with this viewpoint, without inserting irrelevant opinon? Let this be a challenge to you, for which I have no answer at present! :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird line

"On 15 September 2008, Richard Wright died at age 65. He was applauded by his surviving bandmates, Gilmour in particular, for his influence on the sound of Pink Floyd."

"Surviving"? Sounds like they where all nearly killed by the same thing. 217.211.92.186 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Zazaban (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The usage is correct. Look it up in a dictionary. I thought "applauded" sounded the most awkward in the sentence, but its probably fine the way it is.Father McKenzie (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well we certainly don't want to imply he died of the clap. (Oh, sorry, inappropriate morbid humour, please ignore.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)