Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Professional reviews in infobox

Can someone pls explain why User:Parrot of Doom removed the professional reviews from the infobox, as he/she seems unable/unwilling to do so. I searched the talk page archives as he/she suggested, but could find nothing on the subject. Thanks. 81.83.137.238 (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But then again, never mind: I am no longer interested.81.83.137.238 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I am interested. The infobox gives a useful summary of reviews. I'd like to see a good explanation for why it has been deemed unnecessary. KidCanary (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The reviews section also gives a useful summary of reviews, if, that is, people can be bothered to read them. The explanation as to why a separate floating box is unnecessary is that it duplicates information already in the article, and is ugly. Parrot of Doom 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The reviews section doesn't give anywhere near as clear a summary as the infobox does/did (not to mention the fact that there isn't even a clear reviews section on this article). As for duplicate information, the remaining infobox contains plenty of that. The recording date, genre, length, chronology of albums, etc. is all available elsewhere on the page - Surely, we should delete that too? KidCanary (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album no longer contains a field for reviews. That field has been superseded by Template:Album ratings which is placed in the reception section of album articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body#Critical reception. Piriczki (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

...which as a separate entity is both ugly and unnecessary, and a prime example of some users' belief in shiny graphics over content. Parrot of Doom 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's no more unnecessary than the remaining infobox is. There is absolutely no good reason for them to be removed. KidCanary (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather weak argument. Just because you disagree with a point of view does not mean that point of view does not exist, or that those opinions are invalid. You haven't really given any reason for the inclusion of such an infobox other than that it apparently offers a "clear...summary". That may be beneficial to people who haven't read anything other than Peter and Jane books, but I prefer to cater for readers who take the time to sit down and fully read an article. A group of gold stars alongside little names isn't something that's going to help those readers. Infoboxes, generally, are rather pointless chuff, designed by people who lack the willingness or ability to write a decent article. Why do you think they're being phased out of Album infoboxes? Parrot of Doom 19:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it provides a clear and easy to find summary of reviews is a good enough reason to keep it on the page. They also make it easier for people to find a link to a full review should they wish to read one. The more detailed summaries in the main text are useful as well, but often get buried and are hard to find and read. Infoboxes are certainly not 'pointless chuff', they serve as a useful tool to go alongside the main article, and make it easier to find certain facts about an album without having to dig through the main text. KidCanary (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, there are people who browse Wikipedia that are so lazy, they can't be bothered to read the relevant section of an article to find the information they require (although why they didn't just google for reviews, I don't know). Instead, to cater for their needs, you'd rather they be presented with a floaty little box and a bunch of links. If that's the case, it's clear we'll never agree. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about laziness. The review summaries in the main text are often not clearly marked, and get buried amongst other things. Sometimes people just want to take a quick look at review scores to see how well something was received, and the infobox serves that purpose. Ideally the review scores would have just been left in the main infobox, because it looked far better, but for whatever reason it's been decided that that was unacceptable. KidCanary (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion might find enlightenment on the following Wiki-page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space. Best. 81.83.132.137 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Reminding all parties involved here of WP:3RR. Please do not continue to revert one another until consensus is formed. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I did wonder what the heck was going on. It certainly doesn't seem worth losing editing privileges over. --John (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Giving this article a quick once over, I personally found it difficult to find the text reviews of The Dark Side of the Moon (No separate heading for the reviews and found two sentences into Releases). Also the Template includes details of reviews that are not mentioned in the text. memphisto 19:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The irony is that I defended their inclusion in the main infobox, they were fine there (look at history, click 500, search for "review" - you'll see that I reinstated them, and that others removed them). I still don't understand why WP:ALBUM decided not to include them there any longer. My view is simple - when in a separate box they are visually ugly, and completely unnecessary. If people like I'm quite happy to include in prose recent critical opinion, so as the reader might gauge how that opinion has changed over the last 30 years, but I absolutely do not like that box. It's silly. Parrot of Doom 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If the reviews were fine when they were in the Template:Infobox album, I can't see any reason for them not being moved to Template:Album ratings. memphisto 22:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My reasoning is that as a separate entity, they're ugly. That's it really. Parrot of Doom 23:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See, that's just pure opinion. They weren't ugly in the infobox, but they're ugly in a different template? I don't get it. I'm sorry, but this smacks an awful lot of WP:OWN. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I really should have a standard response to claims of ownership, something along the lines of Arkell vs Pressdram perhaps. It staggers me how often people do not recognise an unwillingness to allow articles to be degraded over time. Parrot of Doom 06:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, I have the very same unwillingness when it comes to articles I've worked hard on. It has gotten me in trouble a couple of times. I want to be clear that I think highly of you as an editor, and given all the work you've put in at this topic area I'm sure you're the authority when it comes to the articles' histories and how they've developed. But as an outside observer I was shocked when I saw the long string of reverts in the history and looked at the diffs and edit summaries. I'm sure you understand that it didn't look good. Having been in the same situation myself a few times, and having felt equally justified in my reverts, I too was upset when someone called me on it and I was censured. Even though, in my view, I was just protecting the articles from degradation, I was punished just as much as the other party. What I learned from that is that when content disputes devolve into edit wars, nobody wins. Like here: now no one can edit the article. It didn't have to come to that. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see blocking as a punishment, and truth be told I really don't care that nobody can edit this article, as currently it's in rather good form. That isn't to say improvements can't be made (there are plenty in its history), just that trivial nonsense can't now be added. Parrot of Doom 13:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Naturally you feel that way, because (A) you weren't blocked, despite going well beyond 3RR in a content dispute, and (B) in your view it's protected in the right version. Had the protection been put in place before your most recent edit, I imagine you'd feel differently. That the ratings are "trivial nonsense" is, again, entirely a matter of your own opinion. They are sourced, they are directly related to the topic, and they are something that most album articles have, so it's perfectly legitimate for editors to want to add them and it doesn't sit very well with me that apparently you get to unilaterally decide that they don't get to be used in your Pink Floyd articles. Looking over this article, I'm surprised that there's very little about the album's critical reception: There are sales figures and mentions of it appearing on lists beginning in 1987, but as far as critics' opinions there are just 3 quotes from Melody Maker, Sounds, and Rolling Stone. I don't know the topic or the era all that well—maybe there just weren't that many contemporary reviews from notable sources—but seeing as this is one of the most notable albums of all time I'd expect to see more of what critics had to say about it, both at the time it was released and in subsequent decades, as I believe it's continued to be critically acclaimed up to the present day. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What you meant was "it's perfectly legitimate for editors to force their own pet styles and preferences on articles they've had practically no involvement in before now". Still, I suppose the general public must be horrified, paralysed with fear that the ratings they came running to find on Wikipedia aren't here.

Oh and if you want more contemporary reviews go right ahead, if you can find them I won't object to their inclusion. Parrot of Doom 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone is trying to delete an image currently in use in this article

Since an editor has decided to go behind backs and try to delete and image from this article without any discussion on the article, I thought I'd inform everyone. The Hi-Fidelity CD image is nominated for deletion. Even though the proper procedure is to bring it up here first, the user is not going to back down from the quick and dirty method of straight up deletion. I haven't been editing this article in some time, so I'm not aware of the image's importance; however its pretty clear that it would have been checked out when it went through the featured article process, by many people. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You really need to stay away from personal attacks about this issue. Taking an image straight to FFD is fine: nothing sneaky or disruptive about it. People that edit the articles in question are rarely sufficiently disinterested to render an objective opinion, so making such notifications on talk pages frequently generates much more heat than light. I never make talk page notifications, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.—Kww(talk) 13:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that is simply bad practise, and its a wonder why wikipedia is such a drama filled environment. I'm attacking the process of skipping the talk page, and informing the user that its poor judgement, but I make no personal attack on them. This is also a featured article, so yes you should inform editors instead of just silently deleting the image. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"... decided to go behind backs" is certainly making moral judgments, and bordering on attack.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

They themselves refused to post it to the talk page of the only article where it is being used. This is going behind the backs of the editors who edit this article and who polished it to the quality it is now. Hey! Maybe that is a personal attack on them? Poor judgment should be called out for what it is - deceiving - that isn't a personal attack though, it's a statement of fact. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And before the WP:NPA barrel comes rolling down the slope yet again, let me expand on that: Many people have worked very hard and over a very long period of time to get this article where it is today. While perhaps they have an emotional attachment (as anyone does towards their creations), that does not disqualify them from

A) Being told that an image in the article is being deleted (or maybe the first step of posting "Hey, I don't think this is a valid FUR... Should this image be in the article?" here)

B) Giving their opinion as to why it is or isn't valid

And so I restate that intentionally chosing not to inform these editors is deceiving, and going behind their backs. Going behind backs isn't a moral state; it's an action. If that action is performed, you have gone behind someone's back, intentionally or accidentally. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Or it's a rational effort to ensure that only disinterested people attend to the discussion. Not deceitful at all, and "deceiving" is an attack word, no matter how you dress it up.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, actively trying to isolate a group of the community from presenting their opinion? That's canvassing and its deceitful. The definition of deceitful is "Intended to deceive or mislead." From the comment on the deletion discussion by the nominator, it is clear that not posting here was intentional. By not posting here you mislead the editors and readers of this article into believing that the image is fine and that it will remain in the article. Are you going to continue to dig a hole of non-logic nonsense or are you going to step up and admit that everyone is entitled to participate and that intentionally forgoing the editors who are interested in the topic is deceiving them? I'm not sure where you got your idea of fair play from, but we don't exclude specific groups here. That's prejudice. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No one actively attempted to isolate a group. If the editors of this article are interested in the general topic of NFCC guidelines, they are free to follow discussion based on them, and no one will exclude them from the discussion because they like Pink Floyd or "Dark Side of the Moon". On the other hand, their opinion on the topic is no more important than any other editor's, and it is inappropriate to specifically invite them.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why does the text for ffd state "If the image is in use, also consider ... adding a notice to the article talk pages"? It is self-evident that any discussion of the removal of an image from an article should be brought to the attention of those interested in the article. Occuli (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it's wrong. Seriously, are edits like this one an improvement to the discussion?—Kww(talk) 16:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

To extend the analogy to another subject, this is akin to holding an election, but not telling the republican ridings that an election is taking place, because they're too involved or something or because they have a conservative opinion, and because you, as a non-conservative, don't believe that what they have to say has any merit. When you discuss removing content from an article, you should inform the active participants of that article by way of the talk page, full stop, period, no ifs ands or buts. What you feel about the benefits of one persons additions to the discussion isn't relevant, because you are not the closing admin! (and also, specifically pointing out an editor and stating their edit offers nothing beneficial to the discussion is the sort of personal attacks you were getting your feathers ruffled about earlier :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the attempt to have this image deleted without notifying the very people who edit this fine article is underhanded at best and Machiavellian at worst. There is no assuming good faith here, this is a very obvious attempt at a total butt fuck of the editors who got this article to FA status, and is seriously out of order. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Was this edit summary necessary? –MuZemike 16:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Next question? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. You talk about assuming bad faith, but then you launch a blatant attack such as that. Fighting fire with fire is completely uncalled for and unconstructive, just as much as what you think about those whom you disagree with. –MuZemike 17:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why ask the question? Duh! --The Pink Oboe (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I would vote for the image's retention here, but I promised myself I wouldn't ever bother with Wikipedia bureaucracy again. If anyone has a better idea of how to create a simple visual interpretation of the album's longevity through the number of re-releases and remasters, I'm all ears. Parrot of Doom 21:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, that comment above was not necessary and I think it's time that editors here start showing civility in discussion. Ironically, despite all the nonsense going on in there, there have been no arguments about why the image should be kept. This "discussion" is just about the fact there is another discussion taking place. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There would be no point in making arguments here for the retention of an image. If the would-be deleter had had the courtesy to leave a notice here in the first place, there would be no discussion here, civil or otherwise. Occuli (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Dark side of the moon mobile fidelity cd FUI.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dark side of the moon mobile fidelity cd FUI.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional single releases

I just noticed at pinkfloyd.com, it lists more singles than what's in the infobox:[1]

Money / Any Colour You Like
- Released 1973 (Angola, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, USA)
Money / Speak To Me
- Released 1973 (Bolivia)
Money / Us And Them
- Released 1973 (Mexico)
Time / Us And Them
- Released 1974 (Canada)
Time / Breathe
- Released 1974 (France)
Money / Time
- Released 1974 (Thailand)
Us And Them / Time
- Released 1974 (USA)

I bolded the two that are already there, but there are others (obviously some are "duplicates"). I don't want to just add these into the infobox without incorporating them into the prose somehow, so I was wondering if there was more information about these or even if they should be included. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Reissues and remastering

What about the 2001 Remastered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.164.192.24 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There was remastered release in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 2003. I don't know about anything from 2001. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposed meaning of "Us and them"

The article states that the song "Us and Them" focuses on the isolation caused by depression, and while this theme is perhaps touched on in the song and most certainly in the album the main theme of the song is quite clearly war and conflict. to quote lyrics of the song as evidence of my claim.

"Forward he cried from the rear And the front rank died And the General sat, as the lines on the map Moved from side to side"

"Haven't you heard it's a battle of words The poster bearer cried Listen son, said the man with the gun There's room for you inside"

with lyrics like this it is hard to dispute that a major topic covered is that of war. The song continues with the spoken words...

"I mean, they're not gunna kill ya, so if you give 'em a quick short, sharp, shock, they won't do it again. Dig it? I mean he get off lightly, 'cos I would've given him a thrashing - I only hit him once! It was only a difference of opinion, but really...I mean good manners don't cost nothing do they, eh?"

This is more of a generalized statement of conflict. The song continues much the same way..

"With, without And who'll deny that's what the fightings all about"

I thus conclude simply from experience listening and reading about the above song, album and band that the main theme of the song is conflict and more specifically war. I am only bringing this to everyone's attention so that this site may put forward the most truthful and reliable information possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.8.32 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Parrot of Doom 07:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Who cares? It's just a song, it's a great song, but it's still just a song. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Album cover artist credit

I have added the album cover artists to the caption for the cover image. Per a current discussion at Template talk:Infobox album, this is being suggested as a way to credit the cover artist in the infobox, without having to add a new field to the infobox. one editor has reported having this information edited out when he attempts it. If anyone feels this usage of the caption field is inappropriate, and edits it out, i wont revert, but would appreciate them adding to the discussion, either here or at the template. likewise, if anyone feels this is an effective way to document cover artists, commenting here or there would help. I just want to be sure that there is a fairly standard, acceptable way to document album cover artists, just as there is for book jacket artists.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Should have more info on the Immersion Edition

That part of the article doesn't seem to me to be up to FA standard. --kingboyk (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Change to first 2 paragraphs

I don't mean to over-weight the 5th track by number of words devoted to the subject within the first paragraph, but I believe it reads a little more accurately with the change I have now made (in regards to a move away from long lyric-free instrumentals). I also note that the strictly production material is now entirely contained in the 2nd paragraph by itself (without performance specifics), as a possible side benefit. I am thinking an album-content-matter and group-history expansion to create another full paragraph might be the most desirable end-state, though, because of the overweighting I feel I have momentarily created. I also think mention of the album's sales performance belongs somewhere nearer the start of the article. So, unless somebody else sees fit to beat me to what should be at the beginning, I am not quite finished. I expect the next few hours will allow me to come up with my sense of the ideal final version.Julzes (talk)

I just looked at the change made and think I might have been a litle defensive. Right now it looks pretty good. Mention of the shocking start of the album might make a good addition, for one thing, but I think what I said about sales is wrong at least. And I don't know that I have really overweighted the 5th track after all. If I have changes, about 3 hours should provide them.Julzes (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just say what you feel the problem is with the current layout of the article's lead, and we can go from there? Remember that the lead section is designed to be a simple summary only. Extended commentary is wholly inappropriate. Parrot of Doom 20:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Extended commentary is not what the edit entailed. I am primarily just correcting the sense that the album entirely lacks long instrumental excursions (at first). Now, you have already started an edit war by reverting me quickly on spurious grounds rather than allowing me time to edit boldly AND carefully. If you revert me again so quickly that I cannot mention the sales history briefly in the first sentence, which also seems appropriate, then I will begin taking further recourse.Julzes (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead does not state that the album entirely lacks long instrumental excursions. The sales information belongs in the final paragraph, where the album's legacy is discussed. Oh and please, feel free to do whatever you wish with your threats. If you know anything about me at all, you'll know I don't give a toss about anything but article integrity. Parrot of Doom 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are quibbling. '...lacks the extended instrumental excursions that characterized...' does not read as '...lacks extended instrumental excursions...'? Give me a break, would you? My addition/move involves stating that the 5th track is in harmony (or is a continuation) with their earlier work in a way that the absence of my change says essentially does not exist. The lead reads too much about Syd Barrett and not enough about the album and group in its entirety, and this is the keypoint of the breakdown that I am attempting to fix. You have not even been giving yourself enough time to consider my attempts. I only feel a need to threaten because I am here to edit this one article now and it seems you are here to make sure it does not get edited, almost. You accused my first attempted edit, on your talkpage, of being somehow WP:OR, which you still have not explained. Now, discussion over here for a day unless someone else joins.Julzes (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm here to make sure it doesn't get turned from a featured article into something less than a featured article, which would certainly begin to happen if I didn't revert edits like yours. It's generally known as stewardship, and is not to be confused with ownership, a position I have never taken on any article I have ever edited. Your changes are poorly-conceived and frankly, constitute poor use of English. They are a nonsense.

"and this stands as something of a continuation of the history of the group's use of lyric-free instrumentals." - there's your original research. Reliable sources may make such links, you may not. Parrot of Doom 21:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, we would have to strike the sentence that I see as at fault, as well.Julzes (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No we don't, because that sentence is backed up by a statement cited within the article. Parrot of Doom 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and protected the page for 72 hours due to edit warring. Both of you have broken 3RR, by the way; I don't know if I'll be blocking either of you yet. --Rs chen 7754 22:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Since blocking is designed as a preventative and not punitive measure, and since no such reverting can now take place, I would think very carefully before you do any such thing to either party. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So they were both blocked from discussing the matter. So NO solution can be reached. That's some iron-clad logic there, Rschen7754. Great freaking job. Friginator (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to marginally concede Parrot of Doom's point, or what I believe it would have been if he had expressed himself differently: The vocal work is lyrical, but pre-verbal, and is not truly instrumentation in this particular instance. I may try editing this again, but will post the complete version of a new intended lead here first before editing. Then I will wait, if I do this at all. If, again, with a longer period of thought, the only person objecting to what I write is Parrot of Doom, we might go through the same bullshit. I don't anticipate this happening, however; and if somebody else with the time sees what I see, then I will probably instead end up advising on tweaks to that person's efforts. When this article becomes unblocked, I will wikilink some other things where only mental illness is, and then I will leave for a while. It was not my main objection that Syd Barrett's part in the origination of the group is over-weighted in importance to the album, but it is another small issue. As for editorial policy at wikipedia generally, if it is a feature article you are protecting, why can't you wait for someone else to argue on your side or call such to assist? Why can't you be clear about your objection rather than making it a fight right off? You give the impression that, if we met in London on the street and you heard something about the hood of my car or an elevator in my apartment building from my mouth, you would spit on the ground and walk in a different direction or worse.Julzes (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I gleen the last from remarks about age and use of language, as well as a slight attack on the admin who did the block (his talk), for any third party wondering.Julzes (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My participation in this section is now closed. Please see history for more detail.Julzes (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Minor clarifying point: Some removals concern WP:FORUM and my interpretation.Julzes (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have decided not to do the wikilinking (to time, greed & conflict) I indicated. I think of it as a pointless less-than-half measure. When I have time, maybe I will put some meaningful work into improving the lead to this article.Julzes (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Note on credit for "Great Gig In The Sky" on most recent remaster

In the most recent (2011) reissue of the album, "The Great Gig In The Sky" is credited to Rick Wright, with a note saying "Vocal Composition by Clare Torry". I believe this should be noted because it does not give her credit for song, but just the vocal composition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.81.69 (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The album already says something similar - look at the track list, particularly the writers' column. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Parrot of Doom on the basis that the comment is purely a semantic thing of doubtful offense. That is, the complaint sounds silly and meaningless. No need to overweight article with trivia.144.26.117.20 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Title explanation

I think it would be interesting for this article to have an explanation of its title. Other widely known albums also contain either the official version (Sgt. Pepper) or its most widely accepted stories (Pet Sounds). The title here is most certainly not a case of "Shut Down, Volume 3", I think. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Breathe page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 16:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dark Side ... (without the def article)

The article is great - but it has one major fault: The epic album from 1973 is not titled "The Dark Side of the Moon", but only "Dark Side of the Moon", and it would be wonderful, if the mistake was corrected.

Sincerely Bergur Rasmussen Faeroe Islands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.85.43.22 (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

All the sources used in this article disagree with you. Parrot of Doom 08:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mr. Rasmussen. Regardless of the sources, no matter how concrete they are, Dark Side of the Moon is precisely how the title is written on the actual CD spine, at least on the 1994 remaster. I don't know if The is included on other releases, so perhaps a collector could pitch in with some more info on this. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources are unnecessary in any case, one merely needs to look at the label on the LP. The album, released as Harvest SHVL 804 in the UK and Capitol SMAS 11163 in the US in 1973, was titled The Dark Side of the Moon. The first release of the album on compact disc format (Harvest/Capitol CDP 46011) omitted the definite article "the" from the title for some reason. With the 2003 SACD release, the definite article "the" was restored. Perhaps a permanent notice should be placed at the top of this page so this question doesn't need to be addressed again and again. Piriczki (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just the answer I was looking for. Hence, I propose that this inconsistency be mentioned within the "Reissues and remastering" section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think it's rather trivial and not at all noteworthy. Parrot of Doom 22:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PoD. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The original UK pressing from 1973 says "The Dark Side of the Moon" on the labels, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. And the original record had no title written on the spine. So I see no reason to consider changing the article. Friginator (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Us and Them and Vietnam

At the time this was released, many of us thought that "Us and Them" was an "anti-war" song targeted at Vietnam, part of the "Peace" movement. Was this just egotistical Americans, or did the English see it that way, too? (Peace sign) Sammy D III (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

I could go on at length about how changing citation styles based on personal preference is frowned upon, how mixing citation templates is a no-no, and why removing perfectly valid information is unnecessary, but I won't. I'll simply ask, what is the meaning of these undiscussed changes? What benefits do they bring to our readers? Parrot of Doom 00:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

PS my recent revert was accidental, I do not consider your changes to be vandalism. Blame the slow-loading nature of these rollback tools. Parrot of Doom 00:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Release date in Europe

A lot of sources that I own, also dating back to the late Seventies, cite the release date March 24. If March the First is the (alleged?) release date in the U.S., it could be specified. All the other non English Wikis cite March 24 as the European (and, from an EU point of view, sometimes the true or main because PFs are an European band) release date.--Olbia merda (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article already specifies where and when the album was released. Parrot of Doom 14:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Possessives

Why do we have Waters' rather than Waters's? Most style guides prefer the latter. --John (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the latter sounds daft. Parrot of Doom 00:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the former looks daft. And pretentious, which is worse. --John (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Both are correct according to MOS:POSS, but consistency is key in an article. IMO, it should be done according to the pronunciation of the noun. The possessive in this case is pronounced the same as the non-possessive: "Waters", not "Waterses". What makes one form daft or pretentious, however, is beyond me. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

UK release date

In the book Echoes by Glenn Povey, often cited in Pink Floyd articles, the US release dates for many albums are incorrect. This is obvious from the fact that many of the release dates shown are 7 days prior to the albums' Billboard chart debut date. This is an impossibility because the survey period for any given chart ends 13 days before the chart's week ending date. It appears he made the incorrect assumption that an album debuting in its first week would have been released 7 days prior to the chart date. I suspect the author may have applied the same faulty logic to UK release dates as well. According to this web site, the March 31, 1973 issue of New Musical Express listed The Dark Side of the Moon at #3 on their British Albums chart with the previous week's position #4, which would be the March 24, 1973 issue with a chart week ending Tuesday 20th March 1973. How could an album released March 23 appear in a chart week ending March 20? It seems more likely the release date was Friday, March 16.

This article in the March 24, 1973 issue of Billboard indicates the UK release date was in fact March 16.

The Official Charts Company shows the album's debut date as March 31. I don't know what lead time was necessary for an album to appear in their chart (presumably the Music Week chart?) but two of the other albums mentioned in the Billboard article as being released on March 16 (Tanx and ELO II) also debuted March 31. Piriczki (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why have you brought this up again? Nothing has changed. Parrot of Doom 21:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on this as well. I've always been speculative of the March 1, 1973 date as the release of the album. There was an ad in Billboard magazine in the weeks leading up that it would be released on march 1, but other than that, what other proof is there that the album actually did make it's intended March 1 debut? It was only an advertisement after all, and alot of albums back then were pushed around, unlike nowadays where albums are pinned to a date once they are announced. I've always had the assumption that it was actually March 16, 1973 because of Pink Floyd's discography page and that it's a common accepted dates amongst Pink Floyd fans and accepted as fact in places like Yeeskhul, and my friend above has given proof that the album had indeed not made it's March 1 debut, but was pushed back 2 weeks to the 16th.

Also of note, why is there not a release history in this article? You'd think for something like Dark Side you'd have a list of dates and regions of release, but there's no release history in this article. The lack of it disturbs me, and I'm not that knowledgeable of the release dates of any of Pink Floyd's albums besides Australian releases, so i can't do it myself!

Another thing, I though March 23 was the UK release date! Not the 31st! It's even on Pink Floyd's Facebook page that the album was released March 23, 1973 in the UK! RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 16:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

People can prove whatever they like, the fact is, if it's to appear in this encyclopaedia then it must also appear in a reliable source - which the current release date does. Parrot of Doom 17:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As for supporting evidence of the US release date of March 1, the Billboard album chart reflects sales between Monday and Sunday of any given week and the magazine is published on Friday. Each issue is dated based on the end of its publication week. Thus, the Billboard that was published on Friday, March 9, for example, is dated March 17. The Dark Side of the Moon entered the Billboard Top LP's & Tape chart for the week ending March 17, 1973. The March 17, 1973 issue of Billboard would have been published on Friday, March 9, 1973 and the survey period for that week's chart would have been Monday, February 26 through Sunday, March 4, 1973. An album debuting on the chart dated March 17 had to be selling during the survey week ending on March 4, 1973 in order to appear on that chart which coincides with a release date of March 1.

If someone has access to New Music Express archives to verify the chart debut it would be a big help. It also appears that The Dark Side of the Moon was reviewed in the March 17 issue of NME which might also shed some light on the UK release date. Piriczki (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You've said all that more times than I care to remember, and it is irrelevant. We take what is written in reliable sources, unless you find such a rationale in one of those sources, then it ain't changing. I don't know how many more times I have to say it. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, "the reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content." Considering the sources have been shown to be inaccurate for US release dates, it isn't unreasonable to question the reliability of those sources in regards to UK release dates, especially given the incongruities mentioned above. That is why I'm suggesting checking the appropriate issues of NME or Music Week as possible better sources. Otherwise, the question remains, how could an album released March 23 or 24 appear in the NME chart week ending 20th March 1973? Piriczki (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Quote removed because no source.

I said that "Spiral Tribe DJ Simon Carter described the track 'On The Run" as the first piece of pure techno ever written." This was removed because it didn't have a source.

After I made the change, I emailed him to make sure he was ok with me him quoting him on that in wiki. He said no problem, great to hear from me after all these years, have a look at what I've been doing etc.

Well given I can't ref an email, what am I meant to do?

The quote adds substantially to the section. Spiral Tribe must be one of the most influential free sound systems in history, given that they started the European teknival movement in 1992/3.

So the fact that one of the top DJs in possibly Europe's most important free sound system believes that the tune is the first piece of pure techno ever written is relevant to its legacy.

The point is that if I had a website and put on it "Gandhi said the moon is made of blue cheese" I could put this on wiki and you'd be happy because it is referenced. But you won't let me post a fact (that I got confirmed) simply because it has not been published.

That is pointless.

When I write an essay, I'm allowed to quote a private conversation with an historian as long as it is referenced as such, so why should wiki be different?

Could I ref it as Private conversation with [real name] Autumn 1993, reconfirmed by email Feb 2013?

As I say, he said it to me and a mate 20 years ago, he knows he said it and he still stands by it.

What's the problem?

If you look at the Spiral Tribe wiki page you see "Simon (alias Crystal Distortion)" as listed as one of the members.

As I say, it is one sentence, it is true and it adds to the article. Therefore it should stay.

Just like the rest of you, I'm just trying to add to human knowledge. I don't see why I should have to waste my time creating a blogspot account and blogging this before I can add it to wiki.

It's not exactly controversial.

Please advise.

Ganpati23 (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

"Well given I can't ref an email, what am I meant to do?" - find it in a reliable source, preferably one which is focussed on this album. If you can't do that, then I'm afraid it's tough luck. Maybe Simon Carter's opinion isn't relevant enough for anyone to publish it. Parrot of Doom 18:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Also note that if you made a website, it would not be accepted as a reliable source. To be honest, the opinion of a member (don't know how he's one of the top in this often 15 member sound system) of a group of one obscure form of techno isn't very relevant. Quoting a conversation in a research essay would not fly in most post-secondary (college/university) programs, and an MLA/APA citation does not exist for private conversations. Our guidelines and policies require that information be cited to a source that can be obtained and verified by others. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look at what I've added below. I'll post part again here. But how can you call it obscure, when from one webpage alone, you can see national TV reports from prime-time news from at least 11 countries over a 20 year period. It is not an obscure form of tekno, just because the Canadians didn't get it. It was a European movement. The legacy section is global, not just about Canada. And the population of the EU is vastly larger than Canada. If you speak any of those languages or have any French speaking friends, listen to some of the TV reports. And then tell me it's obscure.

The legacy is limited to those aspects of culture you know about personally. Nor is it limited to North America. Non-anglophone Europeans have a culture too. You may not know any Indian cricketers, it doesn't mean that they are obscure. You wouldn't see debates over Canadian culture or changes to Canadian domestic legislation discussed on French, Duct, Italian etc TV, and you wouldn't expect vice versa. But this doesn't mean either case is "obscure". It is ridiculously arrogant to dismiss the major European musical youth culture as "obscure" simply because it never went to Canada. The one time ST went to the US, the Americans just didn't get it. They couldn't understand the concept of completely dropping out and living on the road. But the Europeans did. The concept of driving for 4 or 5 days to get from Berlin to the South of France or from Amsterdam to Rome.

Look at the tv reports and tell me how you consider teknivals obscure.

This was what tekno music gave to Europe, and "On the Run" is an precursor of this, 20 years ahead of its time. This is why it is significant. The legacy section isn't just "Anglophone legacy", there are more non-English speakers in the EU than English speakers in the US, UK and Canada combined. This is why it isn't obscure. Not being a non-anglophone European, you may not be aware of this importance, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen, that it didn't change a generation of Europeans, and unite them beyond the confines of language, simply because of the power of psychedelic tekno, the origins of which can be traced back to "on The Run".

If it's so obscure, why did many national governments have to bring in legislation to counter it? The Criminal Justice Act in the UK, the French anti-teknival laws (named after the female interior minister. Marianne??? or something), the Czech laws after the police killed a raver stopping a party. The CJA in the UK contained a clause in the legislation stating "music is defined to include any sound made up wholly or partially of a sucession of repetitive beats." That fits "On The Run", no?

This can in no way be considered obscure. Have you no understanding of the importance of the free rave and festival movement in the UK around 1988-93 and in Europe from 1993 until well into the C21st? If a French artist had had an impact that had totally changed North American culture, you wouldn't expect French wikipedia to delete references to it just because some Frenchman guarding the page was unaware of what had been happening in North America for a decade or two. As I say, you will now see the original members of Spiral Tribe or Mutoid Waste on BBC4 documentaries about this, as it's cultural significance is understood. A few years back, in response to the new legislation in France and Italy, tens of thousands of ravrs blocked the autoroute where in crosses the Italian border (at Ventimiglia) and held the teknival there. This was the lead news story in both countries, just like Castlemorton had been for days in the UK, and countless other events in several other European countries.

It is ridiculously arrogant for you to call something "obscure" simply because you are unaware of it. I couldn't name a single baseball player, it doesn't make that person obscure. If you have no understanding of European musical and youth culture during the last decade of the C20th and the first decade of the C21st then you're in no position to comment on its significance or otherwise.

Look, I just did a google, and this was the first page I found. Here about 500 TV news reports about teknivals. http://www.veengle.com/s/TEKNIVAL/6.html Have a look. Click on any of the clips. Now try and tell me this is obscure. How many "obscure" cultural movements do you know that would generate that much coverage in one country alone?

http://www.veengle.com/s/TEKNIVAL/6.html As I say, 500 TV news reports on teknivals from France alone. Actually, sorry, there are far more than that.

http://www.veengle.com/s/TEKNIVAL/6.html I added Spiral Tribe to the search bar. So it says "TEKNIVAL spiral tribe". Press search. 14,300 results. Ok, they are not nes reports, but have a look.

You can see news reports in French and Dutch spanning the period from about 1996-2009 on the first page alone. Hundreds of news reports from national tv channels. Have a look at how many countries - Spain, Italy, Romania, Czech, Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Portugal (you've even got a report on that Fr/It border rave in 2002 if you want to have a look.) as well as Fr and NL.

I've shown you news reports on national tv from 11 European countries over a 20 year period and you call this obscure

Ganpati23 (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know where you got the idea that it's an "often 15 member" sound system from. It was started by 4 people and has had hundreds of members of varying degrees over the years. Secondly, he's one of the top because he was half of the first live set, with Seb. Remember, these were the days long before lap-tops (music was made on an Atari ST, not a PC back then) so it was just a drum machine and 303 synched up. But them doing this was the inspiration for live techno across Europe. The original top DJs were Simon, Seb, Micky, Ixxy and Josh. The first four were the ones who took it abroad. Thirdly, it is not an obscure form of Techno. If you lived in mainland Europe you'd be aware of this. There was no new-age travelling scene or free party movement in Europe until they went out after Castlemorton. They created a pan-European culture. Questions were asked in parliaments, laws were changed etc all across Europe. You seen Teknival information on the electronic signs above the autoroutes. They were reported on the front pages of the newspapers. If a band played to a crowd of 80,000 you'd consider them successful. Well from the mid-late 90s onwards, teknivals in France started to draw the sort of sized crowds. Especially after the govt. changed the law in a compromise, whereby 4 semi-legal Teknivals a year were allowed as long as they finished by Monday. So in France alone (and remember similar things were going on in many other countries, esp. Italy, Holland, Spain and Czech) 40-80,000 people would go to a teknival for the weekend 4 times a year. This was started by Spiral Tribe, and the livesets were started by Simon and Seb. You quite regularly see the original members of Spiral Tribe and Mutoid Waste on BBC4 documentaries as talking heads on these aspects of culture now. So I wouldn't call it obscure. After Castlemorton, the CJA drove Spiral Tribe abroad and free festivals were banned in the UK, but the free warehouse parties have continued for the last 20 years. So when you listen to the different styles of music that they've spawned over the years (each country ended up going off in different directions) it is relevant that one of the people who helped create that sound (imagine French hardtek, for example, or the Italian industrial acid breakbeats) thinks that the first piece of pure tekno was on DSOTM. And at my uni last year, for a 3rd year course, I quoted a conversation with an historian and was specifically told how to reference it by my tutor.

I don't know what MLA/APA is but a quick google reveals that they're both American. PF are a European band, so if you're North American, you're in no position to comment on the impact of a European band on European culture. This page isn't just for North Americans and if there's a European cultural legacy, which there is, then it should be put in.

Wiki is here for us all to add info. No matter how much you love the band, it's not up to you to be the guardian of a page. That's not how it works. If you don't understand the cultural impact of Spiral Tribe in Europe, fine. (And you obviously don't as I have no idea where you got this 'normally 15 members' from.) But for European readers this is significant. As I said, I'm talking about the European cultural legacy of a European album. You can't say that because it's not relevant to North America, it's not relevant full stop. Ganpati23 (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"Wiki is here for us all to add info. No matter how much you love the band, it's not up to you to be the guardian of a page. That's not how it works."

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand how it works. Wikipedia isn't here "to add info", it's an encyclopaedia which mostly anyone can edit. Because of this, people often insert their opinions into articles, or make mention of obscure quotes that most people would assume is trivia. That's why we have page guardians, to ensure that half decent articles like this don't become trivia magnets. It's why we have certain rules on what can and cannot be included. One of those rules prohibits unverifiable sources, which is what your edit was based on. So it can't stay - and that, is that. Parrot of Doom 17:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said I can get it verified, and you can't call Europe's most significant youth-culture movement of the '90s obscure. If it was the lead singer of a band who played to crowds of 50,000 you'd accept it. The fact that the European free rave and free festival (Teknival) scene was non-commercial makes no difference. It was a totally different culture to North-American commercial consumerism. That was the whole point. It wasn't about money or record sales, it cut out the corporate exploitation. Europe didn't have free festivals or "new-age travellers" until the Spirals started the Teknivals in 1993. Thousands of people were living on the road, travelling around Europe, living in trucks and vans, going from festival to rave to festival to rave for more than a decade.

In terms of longevity and impact, it was more important than punk. It lasted well over a decade, and because of the lack of lyrics, it united Europe in a way that no previous musical culture could. In the Anglophone world, we forget the importance of language. You can listen to the Sex Pistols or Dead Kennedys in GB, US, Can, Aus, NZ etc. But the music couldn't be fully appreciated out-side the Anglo-sphere. Likewise, French or Italian or Dutch punk bands wouldn't become hugely successful in countries which didn't share their language. The free rave scene changed all this. Sound-systems would have members from many different countries, likewise they'd have DJ's from all over Europe. Djs would play on different rigs at festivals. For the thousands of people at a Teknival, as they wandered round, meeting people from all over Europe, as they passed a sound-system, they often wouldn't know which country that sound-system originated from nor the nationality of the DJ, because it didn't matter.