Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Personnel chart vs. list

I didn't like the chart at first glance (my usual "conservative" bias at WP, I guess!) but tried to fix it up so its content matches the previous list, and also did some formatting and style fixes. I listed most of the things I changed in the edit summary, but had no room to state the biggest change: merging "lead guitar, vocals" and "guitar, vocals" into one column. While it's true that Syd joined as rhythm guitarist while Bob Klose remained lead guitarist, it's quite likely Syd took on some lead duties before Bob left. If that can't be determined for certain, we should not distinguish between the two. Also, in the brief time Syd and David were in the group together (a period of about 3 weeks) (correction: article says January to April 1968), David's role was to replace Syd in the live version of Pink Floyd, while Syd was to have continued as lead guitarist in the studio. Therefore assigning one as lead guitarist and the other as second guitarist is inaccurate.

My changes do not indicate a vote in favour of the chart over the list, but I thought it should be fixed up so we can make a fair decision about keeping it. It's not bad, but is it necessary or helpful? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed a problem: Bob Klose was never a vocalist. How do we address this without making a separate vocal column? And can we credit Wright or Waters as vocalists before 1967? I have seen no evidence that they were vocalists in those years. Also, I really don't want to rehash old arguments over who was officially the Pink Floyd vocalist after Syd. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

--While I thought the personel list itself was very accurate, I find that personel charts for bands with many members allow the reader to see not only who was a member when in the band just as easily was with a list, It allows for a more intunitive mental integration of the evolution of the band itself. For those not familiar or partially familiar with the band, viewing only a list does not necessarily facilitate these readers in quickly figuring out who played with who when.

I suppose there are some friendly points I'd like to make about the advantages of such a chart where the role of each member is more casually defined. While I feel that specificity of what each member was doing when is generally good to include when possible, some details were yet left out of the original list. For example, David Gilmour had been known in later years to play bass in the studio. If we are to be sure to mention Waters' guitar playing in the early years, should we not mention Gilmour's bass playing on "The Division Bell," or for that matter Wright's playing of the saxophone in the earliest days? I would recommend that each member be allocated under a general category of their role in the band's history in the chart (Ex. Roger Waters-bass and vocals) even if he did not sing in the earliest years that his block happens to intersect, in order to avoid the chart becoming too splintered and crazy. Of course I'm flexible about it and only seek to improve this article and any other I contribute to on Wikipedia.

Another thing I'd like to discuss is that, for a band that was briefly a 5-piece, mostly a 4 piece, and at times down to 2 or three members, it's only natural for a reader who is interested in learning about Pink Floyd to wonder who was filling in the gaps in the later years. That is why I mentioned hired people like Kamen, Levin, Pratt, and Renwick. Not that we have to include everyone who has ever played with Pink Floyd, but I think that a new reader may wish to know who was playing bass in PF after Waters left, or who was playing keyboards amidst Wright's firing on the "Final Cut" album. A big empty space sort of implies that Pink Floyd didn't have a bass player after 1985, which is simply untrue. They did, they just decided it was not in their financial/professional best interests' to make that person an official member. If the article is to be informative, why not leave these in to flesh out the picture for the reader. I left them linkless and with "(hired)" to differentiate them from members of Pink Floyd Ltd. The reason I used 1981-1983 and 1986 as dates is because Mason is on the record in his book as saying he was sure that Waters felt his time in PF was over after the FInal Cut record, and Gilmour was not sure as to his desire to continue Pink Floyd until December 1986.

-User:Chrisacc82

Without commenting on the whole discussion, I'd like to say that such an elaborate description would really belong in a new article, such as List of Pink Floyd band members. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I understand your reasoning, but it is not consistent with other group articles. Personnel lists generally show only official memebers. We have already determined that Richard Wright should not be listed as a member during the recording of A Momentary Lapse of Reason because he was merely "hired" at that time. Dates for people joining and leaving are the official dates, as determined in previous discussions on this page, and should not be changed without re-opening discussions. As for gaps in the chart, they are an accurate portrayal of the group's official membership, and are explained by the main article's text. I am also opposed to showing band members playing various minor or non-typical instruments, as this is against standards not only at Wikipedia, but everywhere. For example, all of the Beatles were multi-instrumentalists, but virtually every personnel list shows their "official" duties as lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass, and drums.

That gets us back to the problem of vocalist after Syd. (And by the way, before Syd, the article mentions a vocals-only member who is not shown on the chart at all. Do we want to consider adding him now to fill this slot? Before making any decision, we need to discuss and reach consensus on this page. Every aspect of the Pink Floyd article has been discussed and agreed upon in the past, and we can't go making content changes together with format changes without prior discussion. That's a big problem with this change: the format forces us to consider some minor content changes to make it work, and we shouldn't be doing that. Anyway, back to the vocals...) Maybe we should exclude vocals altogether, or at least for after 1968. But that may not look right. In choosing who to list, note that some people are of the opinion that Gilmour was the only person who should be considered the "regular" vocalist, some feel it was both GIlmour and Waters, and some say we should credit Gilmour, Waters and Wright. I think the way it was shown in the list format satisfied (nearly) everyone (showing "vocals" rather than "lead vocals" for everyone except Syd), but I'm not sure the chart format won't re-open the discussion.

If we can't come up with a quick solution, we may have to revert to the list format while we discuss it further. That doesn't mean the chart is rejected, just deferred.

Regarding Elizabeth's suggestion: For a band who were around as long as Pink Floyd, their personnel changes weren't too complex, and I don't think we could justify a separate article just for this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

--Fair enough. I DO see what you are saying. To make such a chart 100% accurate in all respects demands some splitting hairs and content changes, which I'd be willing to help out on and discuss if we want to go further on it. Certainly I was not looking to reopen any settled discussion that was difficult to resolve in the first place. In making the personel chart, I was trying to offer a more streamlined way of looking at the band's history, not a more complex one. Again, I also agree we should not be looking to describe any instrument that any member ever played - I was trying to play devil's advocate to point how crazy that could get. Perhaps we can reach some consensus on it. If not, I agree we could go back to the list. Wright, Waters, and Gilmour shared the vocal duties as far as I know after Syd left.

As far as consistency with other Wikipedia rock band articles goes, few fans of the band Yes would think of the musicians Tom Brislin, Benoit David, and Oliver Wakeman as official members, but they are included in that article's chart by Wikipedia editors other than myself, complete with blue links as if the band had recognized them as offical members. Studious fans will recognize that they are not. But I can see the reason they were included was so as to not leave holes in the band's history just because the band didn't wish to extend full membership. I feel I made the PF chart more accurate than this Yes chart by differentiating who is considered an official member of Pink Floyd and who is not, and probably someone should make a similar distinction on the Yes page. I DO think we should have some graphical means of seeing the group's history and the contributing members to Pink Floyd in the historical context to the official members.

--User:Chrisacc82

I'm still not certain it's necessary to show session musicians who filled in the "gaps". Some non-gap musicians (saxophone and guest vocalists) are more notable. Also, if we're considering the live version of Pink Floyd, they had quite a list of on-stage musicians and this would make the table quite large.

As for the the issue about vocals, let me think about it some more. There must be a solution, and I might propose something on a sandbox page. I'm not against leaving the table in the article for a little longer. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please also consider the accessibility of the table format for this information. It's not good,. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the link you provided re. accessibility, it seems to be saying to use substitutions for a few things we are using, such as "!" to mark a row heading. Does this mean your concerns can be addressed with a minor coding change? If so, please do fix it; I haven't worked with table coding except to set something up via trial and error (which is what I did when I edited the table). The article also mentions the problem of voice browsers trying to scan tables, but if the table really does add visual clarity, that may justify its use, and the article does not come out against tables. If you have other concerns, let us know. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the chart could like with vocals in a separate column. What do you think?

Years	Vocals	Guitar	Keyboards	Bass	Drums
1964		Bob Klose Roger Waters	Richard Wright		Nick Mason
1964–1965	Syd Barrett	Bob Klose Syd Barrett		Roger Waters
1965–1968	Syd Barrett Roger Waters Richard Wright	Syd Barrett
1968		Syd Barrett David Gilmour
1968–1981	David Gilmour Roger Waters Richard Wright	David Gilmour
1981–1985	David Gilmour Roger Waters
1985–1987	David Gilmour
1987–1994			Richard Wright

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

--i think this is a very good chart you have made, Knight Thank you for taking my idea seriously enough to try two new versions of it for the sake of improved readibility and information. Personally, I would vote for it above even the one I made. I was not considering voice browsers. Ultimately we should go with the format that most people who look at this article want. I'm glad for the sake of the article that a regular editor of it would take the chart idea into consideration. Chrisacc82 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)chrisacc82

One more concern: Shouldn't we put David Gilmour under bass for the 1987-1994 era? Chrisacc82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He isn't credited for bass on Momentary Lapse. He is on Division Bell, but so is a session musician. I doubt he played bass in concert. Do we know if he played a lot of bass on Bell in comparison to the other musician? If not, I don't think we can consider it one of his main instruments. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess he played even more bass before Waters left. "One of these days" and "Hey you" come to mind as prominent examples. He played more synth and keyboards in 1987/94 for sure.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

-so i guess we are going with list? -User:Chrisacc82

It was more complicated than that, but in the end, yes. Replying on your talk page --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrew King, Blackhill

The articles Andrew King (music manager) and Blackhill Enterprises are both under-developed stubs. Please help to expand them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Early names for the band

I have removed the recent addition of two names for Pink Floyd before they were Pink Floyd. We used to have "Architectual Abdabs" in the article until it was pointed out that this is a misunderstanding coming from a newspapaer article which used that phrase as its headline. The story was about how "The Abdabs" came from an architectual school background, and was not meant to state that the headline was the name of the band. It is true that this error has been printed in reference sources before. As for the other name, I've never heard of "Leonard's Lodgers", but I've seen the names that do appear in the article in many sources. Since the same source is being cited for both added names, and one of them is clearly wrong, I'm going to question the other one by association. If someone can point to another source, we can restore it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Mason states: "indeed, we used the name Leonard's Lodgers for a while" (side 20 in my 1st edition of Inside Out). It is related to Mike Leonard, they lived in his flat or house. As for the ArchAbd one, I really don't know.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I've put that part back. But I don't think it's properly referenced, and I did not add the explanation of who Leonard is. Can someone else improve it, please? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the article

(Note: I'm adding this on behalf of Willy1234x1 whose post got reverted because he over-wrote another section when adding his. The restored post is followed by my reply.)

In the article it states "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" while the band line-up says Former members for all members. As well as a lack of a part speaking of their break-up it seems inconsistent to leave are an English rock band or vice verse. - Willy1234x1

You're right. This has been discussed before, and we could not agree on whether to consider Pink Floyd in the past tense. As a compromise we have decided to consider their years of activity as a continuous working band to have ended in 1994, and therefore we have an end date in the infobox, and all members are listed as "former" as this is required by infobox rules for the members field. But the group have never formally announced their break-up, and still exist as a corporate entity (so its members are still memebers in a legal sense), and they have done three one-off performances as Pink Floyd since then. Therefore we have decided to leave the word "are" in the opening sentence, and in the personnel list. We have often seen other editors try to change the article one way or the other, and have reverted "per consensus". Please have a look over past discussions, including archives, for all the details, but be forewarned, it is a lot of reading! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be past tense. They are no longer together, with Richard Wright dying, I would have thought this would have made it even more obvious. Tom Green (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Wright was not in the official line-up on "Momentary Lapse" (although he is on the album, credited as a session musician), so a version of Pink Floyd can exist without him, and has done so. Nothing has really changed. And yes, this decision was reviewed after Wright died. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I want to say that writing articles in "British English" is not an argument. Yes, there are many countries where English is spoken in the world, but this is International English we're talking about, not British. So please take all your "rent-a-car"s and "hairs on a bobbin" and get them off. This is first. Second, Pink Floyd DOES NOT EXIST since 1996. WTF is this "are" doing there? There is nothing to discuss, they WERE a band and that's final. Please change it, plus "one-off reunions" - hmm, I'm not sure. I'd write it like this: Active from 1965 to 1996, On hiatus from 1996 to 2008 and Dismissed since 2008. With at least one of band member's dead, the band can no longer reunite.216.252.78.126 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what more can be said... every point you've made about PF's status was answered immediately above your post. Regarding British English, it is more international than American English, and in any event, it is an article about an English band, so that is the variant we use. Have a look at WP:ENGVAR, part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No i say Once a band always a band " In the end, nothing ever ends" - 71.254.28.56

It has to be "were" and not "are". David Gilmour has stated that Pink Floyd is over. Do we really have to wait for the last surviving member to die before the word can be changed (and this could be Nick Mason - is he really likely to head a Pink Floyd tour with 3 new comers in 2030?). Pink Floyd never can or will reform and so not reverting to the past tense is surely out of stubbornness! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedlunch123 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Using "are" or "were" to refer to a single group strikes my ears as wrong. I think it should be "is" or "was." Other organizations get singular verbs. E.g., "the U.S. Army is," or "Amnesty International is."--Charodon (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds right to you because you are from a country where grammar is used that way. In most of the English speaking world (outside the USA), the rules of grammar are a little different in some instances, and this is one of them. Wikipedia uses spelling and grammar that best fits the nationality of article's subject. If the subject is not tied to any particular nationality, either system is acceptable, and at that point we strive for consistency, keeping the grammar in whichever system was used by the article's creator, although in Pink Floyd's case, that isn't a factor. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I Love You

I noticed that Water's work for the movie The Last Mimzy is not included. (At least I didn't see it.)

It's a song he recorded for the credits. There is also a feature on the DVD about the movie music and a music video.

I'm not sure if I can make changes though so someone else can!

Boredofeducation85 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason it isn't here, and shouldn't be IMO, is that it is unrelated to Pink Floyd. Waters did the soundtrack for that film apart from PF. If anywhere, it belongs in his article and not this one. Dismas|^(talk) 04:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it might be appropriate in the 1.8 Solo work and more: 1995–present section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredofeducation85 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Raving and drooling

Just have to get something off my chest. Hope this doesn't offend anyone. Not really proposing deleting anything at this stage, just want to get some feedback. If you were to call me a WP "deletionist" I might have disagreed in the past, but in thinking about it, there are quite a few WP articles or sections of articles relating to Pink Floyd that I would be glad to see disappear or be reduced to a short mention:

1. Dark Side of the Rainbow – Sure, it should be mentioned. But the article is clearly written by "believers" who think the syncroicity is deliberate, despite its thorough debunking, or who think it's "really keen" which is no reason to have such a detailed article about it. When I read about the exact place to drop the needle to get the optimum effect, I'm thinking these editors are way too into it to have neutral POV. I'd like to see this article flushed.
2. Publius Enigma – It's not really a widely known, widely covered pop culture consipracy theory, and nowhere near as interesting as rumoured clues about Paul McCartney being dead in the 1960s. Parts of it are real, parts of it are fake, a lot of it is unlikely and unproven conjecture, and some of it has to do with theories about hints at the Waters / rest of Pink Floyd feud, which is very unlikely to have been the subject of the puzzle (see especially recent edits in "Lost for Words"). I get annoyed having to revert an anonymous IP adding "Search more my friends, and the answer will come - P.E" (my edit summary reply: "please stop adding this crap, the game is history!") Time to reduce it all to a short mention?
3. Pink Floyd live performances and at least a half dozen articles on individual tours, all linked together via infoboxes, see Pink Floyd In The Flesh Tour 1977 for one example – Far too much information duplicating what has been said elsewhere. When it comes down to long lists of tour dates, this info is mainly of interest to bootleg collectors. I see someone has created an online database website listing all of PF's tours. The pages recently added to WP are just copying over this info. I'm not sure if it has been done by the same person(s) who created the database. But I see the articles have repetitious flag icons beside each entry to show the country, which seems to go against the advice in MOS:ICON, though maybe that's just a matter of opinion. I also see a lot of problems with these articles, for example referring to Pink Floyd as "the Floyd", which several of us have been removing from Pink Floyd articles when we come across it, but I'm reluctant to do that on pages that probably shouldn't be here at all. I do think it's great this information exists on the internet, but rather than copy it all over here, it would be better to just have an external link pointing to the existing website with all this info. It seems to me that this is exactly what external link sections are for: to point to further information that may be useful to some, but is too detailed for WP.
4. Lists of guitars in articles on David Gilmour and Roger Waters – These would not be a problem if they weren't being modified and argued over daily. If they were being taken from one reliable website or reference book, that would be fine. But there seems to be a lot of POV, which suggests much of it is uncited and unreliable. I think this is being done by guitar fanatics who want to post what they know about guitars, perhaps based on band photos. It seems to be more about guitar identification and trivia, rather than the people. I'd like to see the editors of these sections take it off to another website (perhaps it already exists), and once again, we can just give them an external link.

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond to each of your points in turn. 1) Yeah, this needs to be drastically reduced, and merged into the article on DSOTM. There is not enough content that should be, to warrant its own article. I'd be fine with an AfD. 2) Personally, I'd be fine with making it shorter and making it a section of the album's page. But since it has a fair number of references, and has survived an AfD, I don't see that happening. It certainly isn't as atrocious as is Dark side of the rainbow. 3) I'm ok with these. A lot of info, but sourced, and better than many articles on here. 4) Get rid of these. We don't need arcane lists of equipment. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on point 3 and 4. Of course it can be bether, and perhaps shorter, but I don't think deleting articles or sections is the right way to deal with problems. Floyd (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sales

Why was Floyd's total albums sales reduced from 250 to 210 million? Revan ltrl (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can point me to when it said 250. Looking back to October, it said "over 200", then was changed to "210" in December and a reference added (see reference number 1; numbers 2 and 3 say "over 200"). If you want it changed to 250, you will need to cite a source which says this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could point you to several sites stating that they've sold more than 250 million albums, some of them citing wikipedia, apparently. Revan ltrl (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/sevenages/artists/pink-floyd/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/sevenages/artists/pink-floyd/ http://www.americanroyalarts.com/catalog_search.php?p=1&cat=2&id_sub=0&id_nivel_padre=17&id_nivel3=66 http://www.dreamsville.net/?p=132 http://www.theinsider.com/news/420101_Pink_Floyd_the_Band_Most_Fans_Want_Reunited

The Beatles' article says that they've sold more than a billion records, Led Zeppelin's more than 300, though the list indicates that Pink Floyd has indeed sold more than Zeppelin, and wikipedia needs to put its act together, it has a negative attitude. The articles have to show that Pink Floyd has sold more than Led Zeppelin. Because they have.Revan ltrl (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You have to show reliable sources for your claims - currently you have a negative attitude. SCR. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Boys! Boys! Let's not use fightin' words! I suspect Revan ltrl may not understand how Wikipedia works. Anyone can contriubute to the article by changing it; Wikipedia itself does not have any "attitude" except for a desire to see that reliable sources are used. If there are sites that quote Wikipedia as saying 250M, but the Wikipedia article doesn't say that, what does that tell you? Answer: probably what Revan suggested earlier: the article used to say 250M at one time. If that's true, then it must have been changed because reliable sources had a different number: 210M. I notice at least one of the sources you gave us seems to have copied their entire write-up of Pink Floyd from Wikipedia. Other articles just mention the statistic as a "by-the-way" without saying where they got it. They probably got it from an older version of the article at WP, in which case we've been giving out bad information, and we can see the consequeces of that. So we don't want to repeat that mistake! WP doesn't "need to" show that Pink Floyd sold more records than Led Zeppelin if it hasn't been verified, and certainly can't say it just because one person wishes it were so. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously wikipedia got offended by my attitude statement and sent one of its capos to restore respect and balance. Scratch. The other guy, please check out the sources on Zeppelin's article and tell me that they're not by-the-way mentions. "You" shouldn't worry about giving out bad information (which it wasn't in this case) as much as being a total contradiction-fest.Revan ltrl (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you still don't understand how this works. Every major article has other editors watching it. Nobody assigns this to us. When you edit any article, it will be put on your watchlist by default, and you can check up on it later. Wikipedia did not "send" anyone out to respond to you. As for checking out sources, tell you what... you find some sources and quote them here, and if they appear to be credible, we will let you go ahead and change the article. Sound fair? That's how it works. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went over to Led Zeppelin's page to present the source that posts a list which shows the best selling artists of all time, which in turn shows Pink Floyd on the eleventh spot with 210M albums sold, ahead of Led Zeppelin. Guess what, it was killed stone dead by Led Zeppelin's admin or whatever he is (but he has far more medal of honors than you, does that mean you have to obey him?) and said that it isn't a reliable source and that all current sources Led Zeppelin's article has about their sales number (300M) qualify "at this time". And to be frank, they are in the same style Pink Floyd's earlier sources who mentioned 250M were: by-the-way mentions and most likely took their information from wikipedia itself. If this isn't an impossible equation, I don't know what it is. Obviously that list isn't worth a dime, and obviously other articles (like Led Zep's) manage with the kind of sources you oppose. One thing's for sure, though. Led Zeppelin's 300M against Pink Floyd's 210M is insanely inaccurate and it shouldn't remain that way.Revan ltrl (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states both, Zep's and Floyd's sales up to date. It's as easy as that.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the Led Zeppelin talk page (since you mentioned discussing this same issue there), and it appears you are trying to play both sides of a game. I believe it was you who removed the link quoting the IFPI list of best-selling artists of all time, under an anon IP, 99.230.136.221, because the edit summary from that user contains the same style of comments you have been making here, the edit summary being: "The first source(ESC) is garbage( According to that source Mary Carey sold more than Led Zeppelin, what a joke) I removed it." (Apologies if this IP editor is not you, but I'm basing my reply on the assumption that it is.) At the Led Zeppelin page, you are trying to get this same citation established as the reliable source for quoting a different sales figure than what LZ's article currently says. I have no comment on what's happening at LZ, but if you removed the link from PF's article just out of spite, because you couldn't get it accepted at another page, that is not responsible editing.

Regarding the edit summary, statements like "garbage" and "what a joke" tell me nothing about why you feel this way, or why your point of view should override statistics. Do you think that either the IFPI, or the website quoting them, is deliberately giving false information? Or that the article contains inadvertent numerical errors? What is your basis for thinking either of these?

If you are trying to come with a reasonable, logical explanation for these figures, they seem entirely likely to me, and I can give you an explanation. Pink Floyd's music has a stronger intellectual, artistic side, not to mention a frequently dark, moody side, which may gain them critical acclaim, but perhaps not quite as much mass appeal as LZ. Frankly, if it weren't for PF's guitar solos and hard rock sound, they probably wouldn't be anywhere as near popular as they are, from their "intellecual" themes alone. So yes, it does seem reasonable that LZ might have sold more records than PF, based on mass appeal. Selling more records doesn't make them a better band, if you're into critical analysis. (Hope I haven't offended any LZ fans here!) As for Mariah Carey, she is one of the biggest artists of a generation that came after PF and LZ. I don't know what you think of her, but if you were to tell kids of the 1990s that bands of your generation were so much better, you would be in the same situation as parents of 1964, trying to steer their kids away from the Beatles, and toward Frank Sinatra. You could be right, but the kids won't listen, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect her sales could exceed classic 70s rock. Remember, these are worldwide statistics, for all countries, all age groups, all demographics. Just because the crowd you hang out with doesn't care for MC (just a wild assumption on my part!) doesn't mean it's not credible that she could have such popularity internationally. For gosh sakes, Nana Mouskouri has greater sales than the bands we're talking about, and I'll bet you're not into her music either.

The IFPI sales figures are exactly the kind of figures we are looking for as a reliable citation. It would be nice if we could point to it at the IFPI website, and to use figures more current than 2006, but I haven't been able to find any lists over there, just anti-piracy propaganda. It's possible they have published a more recent list that actually shows a sales figure of 250M for PF (and who knows, maybe even 300M for LZ). But I haven't been able to find a more recent list from any media outlet, nor from the IFPI directly. I lieu of that, the esctoday link is the best we have, and it has been restored, along with the comment that was removed: "not to be changed without new citation". A new citation was not presented, nor was the removal of this link discussed directly on this talk page before it took place, which certainly should have been done.

Finally, I see you insist on referring to fellow editors as "admins" and complaining about their alleged authority. On this page, you complained about "Led Zeppelin's admin" and his "medal of honors", whatever that is supposed to mean, and on the LZ talk page you complained about "PF's admin". This is all nonsense. We are editors trying to maintain and improve the articles according to policy. If you're looking for sympathy because you feel you're being treated unfairly, I'm sure you won't get it, because we all play by these rules, once we understand them. All you are demonstrating is that you haven't got to that stage, or reject WP's policies because they don't let you change things to the way you want. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought about the anon IP and was close to file a sockpuppet case. This is a clear attempt to disguise his identity and to gain profit from. And Mary Carey? I think she sold more DVDs than Floyd and Zep together - but I guess no CDs at all... Or did he really talk about Mariah Carey? Well, she had more Number One hits than anybody else in history - including Elvis, the Beatles etc. - and sure more than Floyd and Zep together. Most figures count records, not albums, and Mariah, the Beatles, Elvis have sold lots of singles, while Zep and Floyd were album bands - not even releasing singles (Zep) or at least hardly any (Floyd). I repeat myself: Find a reliable source incl. sales figures for both, Zep and Floyd. Anything else won't help us much. I had a quick look yesterday but didn't find anything.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 15:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I like being ignorant to wikipedia's and you admins' ways 'cause you all sound so uptight. Well, nice try explaining why Led Zep's sold more than PF, though I recommend you don't say it out loud to anyone because I laughed hard, or cried. 'Dark and moody' and whatever you said - nonsense. It isn't likely to me because LZ's best selling album (IV) has sold as much as PF's second best selling album (The Wall) with 30 million sales each, aprox, and that's a fact. Nice try, though it works better as a joke. And I didn't delete anything, apology would be accepted if you admins weren't putting so damn much effort in sounding so.. dunno.Revan ltrl (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So where are those admins? I don't see any... Zep at least sold more records than Floyd in the US as you might see here: [1] Far more I'd say. That's the best source I found. Do you have others? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you run out of answers? You're one of them, by the way. Zep has sold more in the US, about 35M more (I wouldn't call it far more), I know, but we're talking world wide sales here, and there are other parts in this world that more than make up for Floyd's album sales, Europe for example, and their stronger longevity and iconic status (they have far more fans on facebook and more often than not defeat Zep in different polls and such (I love both bands, but it's worth mentioning)). I have a source that's been used on several wikipedia articles that I hope you won't call total bullshit. It's worldwidealbums.net which lists album sales. I was wrong about Led Zeppelin IV, it has 35,5M against The Wall's 30M according to the site. Well, I added the bands' respective album sales, and here's the result: Led Zeppelin - 162,5M, Pink Floyd - 193,75M. A fairly solid lead. At least that site opposes wikipedia's statement, which is a 100M Zep lead against Floyd. Worth taking into consideration? Here's the list: Revan ltrl (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC) www.worldwidealbums.net/index.htm

Well, I am no admin and don't want to be one. So stop posting your anti-admin rubbish. I have problems with most admins myself. Your link - ehem - is also rubbish. I can't even post a link to the methods page because WP is considering it as spam. No, not really reliable at all. And even if - your 193m is not that far away from our 200/210m. So you may find a better source at least for the Zep sales if you want to change that. Or again, a reliable, up to date source for both, Zep and Floyd. Go for it! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But that site is used on several wikipedia articles as a source, dear admin. Are you saying the numbers there are made up? Because Zep's 162M are far far away from their supposed 300M. Why don't you stop nourishing wikipedia's wicked ways for a change? Go for it!Revan ltrl (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Several? Where? If you find such links just remove them (see [2]). And still you don't have even one reliable source. No need to change anything here. Please go trolling around on other talkpages. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 15:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I sense you've taken offense by this discussion, but please remain "civil", you don't want to make the wrath of almighty wikipedia surface. Well, I've looked around and found a whole new number to their sales (300M), but that's probably rubbish, but I'm gonna post them here anyway for you to butcher. But who knows, maybe one by some miracle qualifies, because Zep's sources haven't taken their info from wikipedia, no. I found two sources for 250M, one of them used on the Swedish wikipedia. Revan ltrl (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.93xrt.com/pages/2350529.php http://www.sumo.tv/watch.php?video=3510352 http://www.americanroyalarts.com/catalog_search.php?p=1&id_nivel3=66&cat=2&id_sub=0&id_nivel_padre=17 (250M) http://pinkfloyd.mobi/ http://www.lastfm.se/music/Pink+Floyd/+wiki http://www.virb.com/pinkfloyd http://www.hitzonly.com/2007/08/21/artists-claimed-to-have-sold-250-million-records-or-more/

None of these sources say where they are getting their information, and we are seeing the exact same wording over and over, so obviously they are just copying from each other. Therefore they are poor and unreliable sources to be replacing our current source which does say where their information comes from. If you yourself think some of these sources are rubbish, why are you posting them here? Why do you invite others to "butcher" them? It does sound like contempt and trolling. Regarding civility, you keep griping about Wikipedia and its users every time you post, and say things you don't mean (using sarcasm) like what you said above about the Led Zeppelin page, where you are unhappy about things happening over there, the opposite of what you say. You may have a legitimate gripe about the Led Zeppelin page, but you need to take it over there, not here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are these reliable? http://www.led-zeppelin.com/news/vh1_9.14.06.html
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2442&date=20051107
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562990/20-million-Led-Zeppelin-fans-rush-for-tickets.html
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-01-28-led-zeppelin-concert-off-until-at-least-september

The guys over at Zep's page say they meet wikipedia standards. You're the first one I've met who say a source needs to tell where it gets its information from, reliable or not. Isn't that something like a vicious circle? Well, none of these say where they get their information from.Revan ltrl (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The sources are reliable in Wikipedia terms but I fear the 300m are taken from here. Since they don't give a source themselves, we can't be sure. But even if it's true - what does this help on the Pink Floyd article? You still gotta find a source for both - or a reliable source stating Floyd have sold more than 300m. BTW: I welcome your new found friendliness.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And that was before I even knew about my trial =PRevan ltrl (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean discussion.Revan ltrl (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

New personnel chart

Sorry, but I have problems with the new personnel chart. It was only a month ago that another editor replaced the list formatted section with a different chart. Originally, this section was a simple list showing one line for each member, their years in the band, and their instruments. A chart was inserted as a replacement because someone thought it would be visually easier to follow the timeline of people joining and leaving.

The new chart has neither the simplicity of the original list, nor the visual ease of the January chart. It is now long and sprawling, and does not give the viewer a simple understanding of the band's personnel changes, which are not too complex to begin with. During their years of recording, the group only had 5 people, and all 5 were in the band at once, at one point.

Another problem is that the list unnecessarily duplicates the short discography. For the second time, we have that same wikilinked list of albums. As you may know, every 10 days or so someone tries to edit the list and insert live or compilation albums, which we revert because those belong in the separate discography article. I'm afraid that now we will have 2 lists to be maintained regularly. Furthermore, each album is followed by a link to the year, i.e. "1968 in music" etc., which is a practice that has been depreciated, meaning we are supposed to be using it a lot less, and it should not be used in this instance.

I'd like to take a vote on this:

1. Simple list
2. First chart visually showing people coming and going; you can see it further up this page
3. New long chart with the discography
4. New long chart without the discography

• #1 is my choice. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• #1 is the choice for me. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we don't have so many users watching this talk page, as we used to. I would have liked to see more discussion. Looking at the various versions again, I still think the short list has good clarity, and will consider the response above as approval to put it back. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it, but I don't care much for which version we use. I think to some extend that's splitting hairs... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 08:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Should Roger Water's The Bleeding Heart Band be added to the Associated Acts list? Since solo projects by Gilmour and Wright are listed, shouldn't Water's be there as well?Krobertj (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We reviewed the wording of the infobox instructions last year, and decided against using this field to list solo projects which only have 1 member in common. The instructions are Template:Infobox Musical artist/doc#Associated_acts; note especially the second half: uses to be avoided. The existing parm values you mentioned should be removed. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the other bands appearing here do not belong either, for the same reason; only Sigma 6 should be included. I will remove the others if there are no objections. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

ELs

I suggest that Another Link in the Wall be removed from the external links. We don't link to fansites, and a directory of fansites is no better. Linking to DMOZ on Pink Floyd would be far preferable. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And FWIW, the discussion which globe think justifies the link's inclusion is at Archive 2 of this page. I acknowledge that it looks like there was consensus for it then; but consensus can change. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

IF a "fansite" should be added then probably "Brain Damage", for being a reliable news and research site for many years. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 08:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make much more sense to link to no fansites? And link to DMOZ instead of ALotW, seeing as how linking to dmoz seems to be SOP. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

dmoz is hardly any good at all. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it hardly any good in this case, or in most cases? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

At least in all cases I saw. One could use Google then for the very same results. Brain Damage instead is well known for years, and has contacts to at least Nick & Storm as well as Barrett's family. They're very fast and reliable in providing news and have a lot of useful coverage of past events.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is dmoz so often linked to, if it isn't that good? And I would prefer to link to no fansites at all, pesonally. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know and I really wnat to know. I checked some artists and the best websites were not included. Absolutely useless link. I still would like to know what others think about including Brain Damage, which started as a fanzine that got cited even by Mason in his book if I remember right. Schaffner and MacDonald sure made reference. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't super-interested in reading through it, but there is discussion about the inclusion of dmoz in the WP:EL talk archive. Archive 23 is the most recent (from Nov 08), and archive 13 has a fair bit of discussion on it as well. And I'm willing to defer to your judgement on Brain Damage. As long as no-one opposes it, I won't either. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

ALotW is not a collection of fan sites but a list of Floyd related pages freely submitted by users. There was a long and very stressful discussion about this topic (see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Pink_Floyd/Archive_2#links ). Dharmabum concluded: "I've replaced the link to Another Link in the Wall, which is an extensive collection of external links, as that seems to be the solution offered by WP:EL, and all the links that were in the article before, disputed are not, are easily found there. Hopefully this can finish these endless arguments so everyone here can get back to writing an encyclopedia." I think that is not possible to change continually the decisons taken in the past by mutual consent and that ALotW is still compatible with "Wikipedia:External links" suggestions. Alternatively we can refer to http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Bands_and_Artists/P/Pink_Floyd/ but in my opinion dmoz is a too much bureaucratic system (and I'm the maintainer of both the proposed pages). comment added by Mydarkglobe (talk • contribs) 13:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is hardly "changing continually" consensus from the past. This link doesn't seem to have been discussed since April 2006. Two discussions in nearly three years is a farrrr cry from continual change. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Skip it.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Then may we remove this link? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Np. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good manners ....Mydarkglobe

Sure, Floyd Wiki editors seem to have the ususal Wiki complex of superiority (every site about Floyd is trash). On the contrary I think that a reference to an extensive and updated page to external Floyd sites (not only fan sites) should be addedd avoiding xenophobic and superficial intolerance (links to be considered in the WP:EL are well-chosen links to a directory of websites or organizations). So please, think responsibly to this opportunity instead of censure a link that comes from a long and very boring discussion. Mydarkglobe (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why has Pink Floyd ultimate Fan Page been removed? http://www.pinkfloyd.ultimatefanpage.com/ This is not promotional, or selling anything. It is an official site approved by Pink Floyd management, which lists all the Official PF sites in one place. Its there to help fans get to the correct info quickly and easily. --Sezzawarb (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been alluded to a bit in all the above discussion, but would a database of Pink Floyd's concert performances be worthy of an external link - e.g. www.songkick.com/artists/400904-pink-floyd? As I work for Songkick I can't add it myself (and the last thing I want to be is a self-promoting corporate shill) but I'm curious to hear what the community thinks (which is why I'm asking the same question across quite a few talk pages). I suspect it may qualify under point #3 of the ELYES policy, but I'm far from certain. As precedents, both Shirley Manson and Glastonbury Festival have similar links added by contributors. Michaelorland (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Such a link would have more relevance to this article. Parrot of Doom 12:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wright on winds and/or brass

I removed "brass instrument player" after another editor changed it from "wind instrument player" in reference to Wright. As a follow-up note, I believe "brass" probably refers to his trombone solo on "Biding My Time" (which is also uncredited, but I presume there is a source backing this up somewhere; anyone care to add it?) A good musician may be able to learn to play an instrument he is only vaguely familiar with, for one studio recording, therefore I would question whether Wright can be properly declared a trombonist as a profession. If anyone has more info, or thinks this section referred to something else, feel free to add either one back, but please be more clear on what the instrument is, and why we're including it (for example, if he learned to play a different instrument as a child, or played it in an earlier band, and switched to keyboards later). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Punk influence?

Regarding the statement, Animals was, however, considerably more guitar-driven than the previous albums due to the influence of the burgeoning punk-rock movement. Was it really influenced by punk? I'd really like to see a reference on this. I could see it influenced by the same attitudes that influenced punk. Or by the Floyd just wanting to break away from their previous sound. So the statement surprises me a little bit. -Freekee (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Schaffner wrote something like: "Animals could be misunderstood as Floyd's answer to punk, but "Dogs" and "Sheep" are the 1974 live songs "Gotta Be Crazy" and "Raving & Drooling"..." --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, no reason to include this guesswork analysis, and a good reason has been given to discredit it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Shine On box set - further info

Hi all. I have just broadened slightly the section relating to the rather lavish Shine On box set to include the curious case of the unfinished sentence. Does anyone feel this is too much information/trivia or does consensus agree this is interesting enough? Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the change? There have been no recent edits to Shine On (Pink Floyd album). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the amendment to this Pink Floyd page, not the Shine On (Pink Floyd album) page, although if there is a requirement then the change could be made there too. I put an additional sentence in Pink Floyd#David Gilmour-led era: 1987-1994, chapter 6. Cool name, btw ;o) Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I found the edit later. No problem with it, as far as I know. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard Rock?

In looking at allmusic's review of Pink Floyd, I saw that they list hard rock as one of their styles. Throughout their career, the band has done songs heavier and more aggressive than their usual psychedelic prog repetoire (The Nile Song, Young Lust, Time, etc.). Should we list hard rock in the genre section of this page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobertj (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 May 2009

At present, the words "hard rock" do not appear in the text of the article. Apart from housing a picture, the purpose of the infobox is to summarise some regular (and not always 'straightforward') data sets from the article, so if an acceptable place for an additional cited line (relating pretty much what you've said above) to be inserted into the text is found, it would then be a good addition.--Alf ^melmac 13:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Animals has a far more aggressive electric sound than its predecessors, and allmusic styles The Wall as prog rock and hard rock. I'm still thinking of how I can word those facts in the article.Krobertj (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. Throughout their career, Pink Floyd have made occasional hard rock songs or songs with elements of hard rock (mainly on The Wall and Animals) so I think it'd be alright if we include hard rock in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madroxxide17 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion isn't over yet, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madroxxide17 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

IMHO we could remove all genres from all Floyd related pages, as Floyd always had their very own style with leanings to almost all available genres, including classical music, blues, hard rock, avant-garde, singer-songwriter, psychedelic etc. Actually it's the music that counts, not what genre some journalists come up with. (See Waters' statements to the term "space rock" and Floyd being named a "space rock" band, e.g. in the official tour programme to his recent DSotM tour) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see the genre field buried in peat etc. but that discussion properly happens (on and off) on other pages. When I looked to see where this encyclopedia led me, pop music genre wise, I followed the breadcrumbs to the unbelievably small article Popular music which leads us, to a list of popular music genres which god help us has a key line that reads "Applicable styles are classified in this list using Allmusic [1] genre categorisation"... Each time I check albums on Allmuisc the genre is invariably Pop/Rock and a list of 'styles' is provided, some of the list are frequently not genres at all (NWOBHM, Arena Rock etc) and others are parent-genres of a genre already in the list, so that's also a pretty unsatisfactory state of affairs, to be relying on a single viewpoint whose classification system is shot to bits. Overall, however, the naturally highest classification should be used, for those who are reading about Pink Floyd for the first time. Is "rock" not sufficient for that?--Alf ^melmac 22:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Rock" is a little too wide a field, but "progressive rock" is a good niche to describe the band, especially since they are often cited as a primary example of prog rock. I'm not in favour of adding "hard rock" because there are too many instances of people trying to change genre fields into a long list, and so I prefer to consider whether just one genre can be adequate, which it is for most cases. In Pink Floyd's case, I acknowledge that they had a very different sound in their Syd Barrett days, and have agreed that they should be labelled psychedelic for that era, hence the article currently has two genres. As an aside, I have no problem with genre fields in infoboxes, and while I realize there are hassles over trivial edits, we do have ways of discussing and determining what is wrong or right for the field. If some editors find it too distressing to maintain this field, they can leave it to others, and I'm sure most incorrect changes will continue to be fixed. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You really should make this into one of those advisory pages, really you should, I'd have pointed to it enough times if it were already there.... --Alf ^melmac 15:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The genre issue seems to be a point of great contention. We argue about genres so much that nothing gets done. I used to be what was considered a "genre troll", and I realized that it wasn't a productive role. So the question is this: what do we do about genres? My suggestion is this. allmusic cites every rock band under Pop/Rock as a genre. We could put Pop/Rock for the genre on every band infobox, and then create a sublist under the title "Styles", which would list progressive rock and psychedelic rock (and maybe hard rock) for Pink Floyd, for example. allmusic uses this strategy, and the website is the most commonly cited page when dealing with music Wiki articles. If we follow their process, a lot of the fighting should end. Krobertj (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The styles suggestion has been proposed before (at the music Wikiproject) and rejected. It's a long explanation, but basically, the feeling is that new editors aren't paying attention to rules and guidelines anyway, so making it more complex by creating what may look like 2 levels of genre will just invite more incorrect changes. I don't think a massive change to genre fields in all music articles is going to be accepted either. There is really nothing wrong with the way the field is set up now. We just need to educate other users and explain why an inappropriate change is being reverted. Regarding Alf's request for an advisory page, I do have a draft of one, which Alf is helping me with now, and I'll let everyone know when it goes live. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured article

Why is this article no "featured article" anymore? Where can i find the argumentation(s) to delete the golden star on this good article?Christo jones (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pink Floyd.--Alf ^melmac 20:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of worldwide album sales

This article claims that Pink Floyd have sold over 210 million albums worldwide. However, two of the three sources cited only show a figure of 200 million. The other source, a 2006 article on the Eurovision Song Contest website [3], refers to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry list of the "150 best selling artists of all time." But there appears to be no record of a publication of any such list at ifpi.org, the press release archives at ifpi.org, the internet archive of ifpi.org, or google news archives. The list in the article does, however, exactly match this 2005 forum posting by "britney rocks" [4] which does not attribute the list to any source. That forum posting actually mirrors an old version of the wikipedia article List of best-selling music artists, the accuracy of which was highly disputed and which gave widely varying figures that changed on a daily basis. The only source supporting the 210 million figure should not be used per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Piriczki (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Remove/Merge Sigma 6 article?

I don't really feel the short-lived precursor band to Pink Floyd, Sigma 6, needs it's own article. The line-up is virtually identical to that of early Floyd. "Sigma 6" is basically just a suggested name for the band that was used for a brief period before being replaced by The Pink Floyd. The band went through several other names before deciding on Pink Floyd, what makes this one any different? Why does it have it's own article? The article itself is a stub of low-importance and the little information present in this article that is not already in the Pink Floyd article could easily be merged into it. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Oddfellowslocal151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

Fully agree. Sigma 6 is merely an extension of the Pink Floyd article. Let's keep it tidy, people! Careful With That Axe, Eugene (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hottest 100 of all time

I feel that the third section, "Hottest 100 of All Time" should be removed because it is not worth of an own sector. 83.148.246.254 (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

References

If no-one minds, I'm running through this article with the sources I have, inserting page numbers, correcting minor issues, etc. Perhaps over time (its a bloody huge article) we can get it back to GA, and perhaps FA. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

New version

I've been working on a new version of this article in here. I'm about 1/3 to 1/2 way through the content-building, following which of course is the usual copyediting, tidying, excess removal, etc. I'm a long way off completion but I thought I'd post it here just in case anyone else was thinking of working on this article. Any comments would be most welcome. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost finished with the content of this now. Just The Division Bell to add, along with a legacy section, and recent developments, and a few bits and pieces throughout. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for all the work you've made on the article. About two of the headers. I am not sure if "And then there were 4" and "Spent force" is appropriate as headers in an article that is meant to be encyclopedic. The first one more so than the 2nd one. It's something you would name the chapter in a book. Can you replace them with something else? Perhaps years? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 21:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked a lot at Frank Zappa while writing this. That article uses a similar style. I'd thought about years but it just seems....well, boring really. That's why I also included several funny anecdotes - just to keep the reader interested in what is a fairly long article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced

Wright was also invited to join Waters for the first performance, but Wright refused on the grounds that he had to work on his solo album (which remains unreleased). Waters' worldwide The Dark Side of the Moon Live tour consisted of The Dark Side of the Moon in its entirety along with a selection of other Pink Floyd material and a small number of songs from Waters' solo career, although no songs from The Pros and Cons of Hitch Hiking or Radio K.A.O.S. were included. There has been talk of him doing a Broadway musical version of The Wall, with other Pink Floyd music to be inserted.

I can't find a source for much of that. Can anyone help? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tribute Bands

Seeing as list of Pink Floyd tribute bands was deleted today, can we incorporate some prose into the article about notable cover bands (Those with wiki articles)? I was thinking a new subheader in the Legacy section would fit right in there smoothly. Nothing big, but ATM there is no mention of tribute bands what-so-ever. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd has 2 tribute bands that are barely notable enough to scape out a Wikipedia article. Do they really need free advertising in the body of the main article for Pink Floyd? Perhaps a piped link for the 'Category:Pink Floyd tribute bands' in the bottom navbox under the 'related articles' section would be sufficient enough to cover them off. The Pink Floyd tribute bands, like all tribute bands, are simply 'trivia' in the overall history of the band. And trivia has no place in an encyclopedia. GripTheHusk (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd expand the legacy section - its certainly notable that there are so many tribute bands. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, trivia sections have no place in an encyclopedia. Trivia is certainly a big part of wikipedia, it just should be incorporated into the prose in appropriate sections. See WP:TRIVIA. I'm not sure what the second cover band is, but I know Aussie Floyd have certainly established a global reputation that more than qualifies them for an article. Add on this the fact that they have had numerous run-ins with the band, and you can see why they are worth mentioning over your average run-of-the-mill cover band. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The only other band to have a Wikipedia article is The Machine (band). There were at least 10 others that had a Wikipedia article in the project's earlier years but over time they were all deleted because all of them failed WP:MUSIC. The article for The Machine has been PROD tagged quite a few times. Still a likely candidate to be nominated for AfD. GripTheHusk (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of an article is no guide to notability or worthiness of inclusion in another article. There are several paragraphs or people in this article that alone, would not warrant a separate article. In here though, they're quite acceptable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the earlier comment that the whole tribute band thing is just dumbass trivia. Who really cares? And what does it add to the article? All these bands are just a bunch of NN's and I don't think any of them need a free plug on Wikipedia to advertise what they do. Lacking a Wikipedia article is a perfect guide to notability... when it is Wikipedia that is the host of the content. A single line stating that PF has a few tribute bands and that some of them have had some measure of success. No need to name them... Wiki already has WAY too much list-crufting and example-farms. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Tribute bands are particularly relevant in connection with Pink Floyd, because early in their career they speculated about one day retiring, while other people went out to play their music. The interview is quoted in Pink Floyd - The Visual Documentary. There's also the concept of the "surrogate band" in the Wall: in which fans don't care who's playing the music, so long as they (the fans) are having a good time. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Spent force

There's been some discussion, in recent edit sumamries about waters' description of the Lapse… era Floyd as a "spent force, creatively". I recall that this was in a press release issued by his office, after Gilmour & Co announced that they would be continuing the band. I'm sure that I have a copy, somewhere, but goodness knows how soon I can find it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be much appreciated. I can only find second-hand quotes, nothing from the mouth of Waters as yet. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "spent force creatively" quote comes from the press release announcing Waters' High Court application to dissolve the partnership in November 1986. It was picked up by many newspapers and magazines and can be found in a number of sources, here's one: [5]. Regarding when Waters left the group, it was somewhat unclear in 1984 whether the group was breaking up or not but as for Waters, he could hardly have made his intentions any clearer in this 1984 UPI article "Pink Floyd Expiring as Members Turn to Solo Pursuits" which said Waters and Gilmour have no plans to record together "in the future" with Waters saying "that doesn't just mean in the near future, that means in the future" adding "I don't want to make another Pink Floyd album" [6]. He mostly said the same thing in interviews when he toured in 1985 and some of those articles refer to Pink Floyd having broke up 2 years ago (1983). Piriczki (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. It would be nice to be able to find a copy of his statement, that would be a real addition to this article. I think the 1984/5 leaving date is ambiguous, however Schaffner definitely says "The formal waters/floyd split was actually triggered by the tangential matter of roger's escalating quarrel with Steve O'Rourke over, among other things, contractual commitments for future Pink Floyd product. In June 1985, Waters turned his affairs over the somtime Rolling Stones handler Peter Rudge and terminated (illegally in Steve's view) his personal management deal with O'Rourke..."

That seems to have been the start of all the serious problems they then had. All the sources I have mention a possible performance at Live Aid in 1985, and that only Gilmour performed there, so in my view 1985 is the date to use. It isn't a big deal though, and perhaps we should just refrain from saying "Waters left in 198x", and leave it to the reader? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, can I give people a quick prod to check The Final Cut (album) is ok, after a significant rejig? It needs a copyedit of sorts, and those citation requests filling, and then I'll post it at GAN. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good article in Billboard about Waters' legal action. I doubt the full statement said much more than what's in this article.[7] Then there's this follow up article [8] with Gilmour's response and it also puts Roger Waters leaving Pink Floyd in December 1985. Piriczki (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think then in regard to the 'spent force' quote, its best to attribute it to 'a widely-circulated statement from Waters', rather than Waters himself, since we don't have its full text? Seems a minor thing to stick on but for all we know the statement may have been composed by his manager. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The following is verbatim from the source given below it. It confirms both relative timings and "spent force" utterance. I haven't been following the discussions closely so I'll leave others to paraphrase and quote from this if still wanted.

During the first half of 1984, Gilmour and Waters released solo albums—About Face and The Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking, respectively—two months apart. Both were commercial disappointments, as were the respective tours mounted to promote them (despite the presence of superstar Eric Clapton playing guitar in Waters's backup band). The ignominious fate of his solo venture didn't stop Waters from informing Gilmour and Mason, in the summer of 1985, that he was leaving Pink Floyd. The news was kept quiet at the time. But on October 31, 1986, Waters made the situation public, filing suit to officially dissolve the partnership and declaring the goup to be "a spent force creatively." Gilmour and Mason, however, had other ideas, and made it known that they had no intention of disbanding Pink Floyd. The previously press-shy Waters used the media as a forum to bash his former bandmates, deriding their instrumental and songwriting abilities, and dismissing their efforts to continue under the valuable brand name as dishonest and cynical. [...] After a bitter court battle, Waters would fail in his efforts to retire the Pink Floyd name.

{{cite book |title=Icons of Rock: An Encyclopedia of the Legends Who Changed Music Forever |last1=Schinder |first1=Scott |last2=Schwartz |first2=Andy |publisher=Greenwood Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0313338458 |volume=2 |page=451-452}}

PL290 (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but it still doesn't say where the oft-quoted "spent force" line came from. I think its obvious its from a statement he released, but I'd like to see that statement in full. It must be somewhere... Parrot of Doom 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-Waters Pink Floyd and "Spent Force"

I want to suggest that the article's section on Pink Floyd after Waters' departure be retitled so as to not reflect Waters' own prejudice. At the very least it's current title, Spent Force, could be placed in quotation marks to indicate its subjectivity and offer the possibility of an ironic reading. For myself and many other Pink Floyd fans the period after Waters' departure is one of exciting creative growth for the band. I was saddened to see the dismissive attitude of the band's former leader codified in the article itself through the Spent Force title. This narrow view is not up to Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.69.169 (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look above, a very similar point is currently under debate. Parrot of Doom 17:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review prior comment.

Have tagged this article becasue it's simply too long. There are main article pages for many of the albums mentioned here, less detail is required. Anything here that links to another PF related main article should just have a one paragraph summary. Measles (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no policy which states the maximum length of an article, and there is no requirement to use 'less detail'. I've been working to reduce its size, but it presently falls (just) within the guidelines for article size. There are also overlaps with the album articles, which I'm currently working on and expanding (right now I'm rewriting The Wall). Frankly there isn't a hope in hell of using a 'single paragraph summary' for each album, because this article deals with the interpersonal relationships between band members in a way that the album articles will not. You cannot separate, for instance, production of Saucerful of Secrets, or The Wall, or The Final Cut from those relationships. Once I'm done expanding The Wall and Animals it'll probably be appropriate to delete some of the more technical information from this article, but the personal relationships should remain. Parrot of Doom 11:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That said, I'll remove some of the more specific technical details from the album sections, as I agree they're not really necessary. Parrot of Doom 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, it's 141kb, general guidelines state we should consider dividing articles over 100kb. Personally, I'm not always in favor of shortening articles, becasue it's not a paper encyclopedia, but it depends largely on subject matter, and preexisting spin-offs. Also, concision can help cut back on unnecessary verbiage, so writing style can impact on length also. Measles (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't 141kb of prose. Parrot of Doom 12:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

it's 141kb, simple as that, and there is a substantial amount of minutiae, which is, for the most part, superfluous; relative to level of information required by the general reader. But that is simply my opinion, we can throw it out there and see what others think if you like? Measles (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't as 'simple as that'. The guideline you have provided is a guideline to readable prose, not article size. There is not 141kb of readable prose here. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you insist on laboring the distinction, looking at a version minus the infobox, notes, refs, and external links, it's still coming in at 134Kb, strip back the pix, and maybe you get it down another few kb, but whatever way you look at it, the main body of text constitutes the bulk of what's there, will still come in over 100Kb, and is the primary contributer to a potential sizing issue. Measles (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You are still wrong. I suggest you read WP:SIZE. Parrot of Doom 13:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm wrong, your right, great!!! good luck with that : ) The article currently appears at 474 on the long articles. Measles (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit that you don't understand the relevant guidelines, especially in light of this disingenuous comment. I've explained my position quite clearly, and its a position I'm quite happy to defend. Parrot of Doom 13:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Measles, if you're going to go around taking it upon yourself to tag articles as being too long, then I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the concept of "readable prose", which is what the guidelines refer to. I make this article 83Kb of readable prose, well below your guess of 134Kb, and below the 100Kb limit at which an article almost certainly ought to be split. Consequently I have removed the tag you added. As the set of articles develops I'd expect to see some of the detail on each album transferred to the album's own article in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, my bad, will be more careful in future, thanks for the input! Good luck with the article. : ) Measles (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Article size currently:

   * File size: 382 kB
   * Prose size (including all HTML code): 131 kB
   * References (including all HTML code): 127 kB
   * Wiki text: 136 kB
   * Prose size (text only): 81 kB (13875 words) "readable prose size"
   * References (text only): 18 kB

Courtesy of Dr PDA, shine on,  Badgernet  ₪  20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, I come from WP:3O. Looking at the article (yours truly writing from Cambridge with Pink Floyd in the headphones, heh!) my impression is that the article, apart from the mere number of kb, could benefit of a bit more compactness, especially in descriptions of the albums. A separate article on History of Pink Floyd maybe could help maintain all of the great content making the article slimmer. Hope it helps. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some details can be moved out, but overall the length provides flow between the points which would be lost unless the moving of content is done carefully.

By the way, a quick scan with DYK check provides me with 79289 characters, which is 77.43 kilobytes of prose. Well within the limitation, technically speaking. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WOW huge article...it is so big that it does not load on my Ipod. Big technical issues here for browser limitations and upload speeds, cellular connections, etc. This article is the size of 3 normal articles. No way anyone in a third world country will ever be able to see the page if it is not cut back. Articles that are to big defeats one of the key purposes of the wikipedia project: to provide information for those that cannot otherwise afford it. The page needs trimming in size to meet criterion 4 This page is 139 kilobytes long. See Wikipedia:Article size If an article is significantly longer than 30 -> 50kb, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries. One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. (as of now the article is 17 pages) Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. Many a good GA have had substantive omissions to then to get GA level. For an article that is sufficiently complex, it could exceed the limits of WP:SIZE (+20 to 40kbs over) if fully chronicled to WP:FA standards, there will always be omitted substance when you reach GA level because of Article size limitations. Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to read it on a mobile device then access it through this service. There is nothing wrong with the size of the article. Parrot of Doom 09:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool thank you very very much for the link :) i will use this as default on my i pod from now on. As for size it is big , that is y it says when you go to edit the page This page is 139 kilobytes long, it may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. anyways best of luck to you with your GA nomination, this article is very well written.

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages: Readable prose size What to do

• 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
• 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
• 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
• 40 KB Length alone does not justify division
• 1 KB See Wikipedia:Stub.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pink Floyd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very clear and readable. Very engaging prose.

   B. MoS compliance:

   The lead does not adequately deal with the band. There are statements, such as: "Pink Floyd's work is marked by philosophical lyrics, sonic experimentation, innovative album cover art, and elaborate live shows." where the information is not followed up in the main body of the article

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some statements need closer citing or adjusting

   C. No original research:

   I feel comfortable the material is all sourced

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Some of the major aspects which are mentioned in the lead are not dealt with.

   B. Focused:

   Too much focus on history to the detriment of other aspects of the topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Appears to be neutral.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   There have been various reverts, but within expected parameters for a high profile article

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg needs FUR.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'll take a look over the next few days and give an initial assessment. SilkTork *^YES! 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Depth of detail

This is a very well written and well presented article with good referencing. I haven't finished reading it yet, but a couple of concerns have come up which are worth discussing.

• The depth of detail. There is an intense concentration of detail, and at times I wonder if there is a little too much for an encyclopedia entry. Statements such as "His first meeting with Waters had been when the latter asked to borrow a cigarette (a request Wright declined)", "Jenner traced Waters and Mason to their flat", "At the All Saints Hall they were confronted by an audience whose members were often under the influence of drugs, and who arrived with few or no expectations" seem more appropriate for a form, such as a book, where there is time and space for such incidentals, but serve to hinder a quick understanding of the essentials which is what is required for a general encyclopedia entry.
  • I'd tend to agree. I'll chop some of it out. It was written pretty-much as I read the source material. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Organisation

• Organisation of material. Chronological is a common and accepted way of presenting information. However, it should be considered if that should be almost the only way of presenting information. A chronological overview of the band's development is very welcome - though there are other aspects that could be explored, and a structure considered for how best to organise that information so a reader can get to the detail quickly and easily - that is, without having to read the entire article, especially given the length of the article.
  • I'm not particularly a supporter of categorising details in an article. I prefer the chronological format wherever possible, but I think that using album names is the best way to organise things. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • For the reader looking for specific information, having the material organised in an easily searchable manner is essential, and is the essence of how encyclopedias are structured. I empathise with your desire to write a chronological story, but would say that is not always the most helpful for the reader. Someone who wants specific information on the [Roger Waters David Gilmour feud http://www.google.com/search?q=roger+waters+david+gilmour+feud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a], for example, would like a useful summary in an easy to find place. Currently the dispute is spread throughout the article, and a reader has to work through a lot of irrelevant material to get at it. I understand the sense of pride one can get from shaping an article, but the article is there for the reader, so consideration of the reader's needs - even when that means perhaps shaping an article in an inelegant manner - should be an awareness ever present in all editors' minds. SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That's a good point, however the Gilmour/Waters feud isn't really so simple. The infighting was between all four, those two are most often quoted because Gilmour was the one who took over the band once Waters had left. I think that the reader might be better off looking to the individual biogs, most especially Waters (who has over time fallen out with just about everyone he's met) however I haven't yet gotten around to those. I will one day though, I promise you that. Wright will probably be the first. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Consider restructuring this article so that there is a fair balance between live performance, critical commentary and history. At the moment it could be renamed more appropriately History of Pink Floyd.
  • I don't think that would work at all, in fact I'd object very strongly to any such suggestion. You'd just have a great deal of duplication of text, from this, to a 'history of' article, to the individual album articles. Better to have things in one place. Pink Floyd is 'finished' really, I can't see any more albums or tours from them, so anything you write is going to be historical in context. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Converting this into History of Pink Floyd was not a genuine suggestion. I was making a point about the current focus of the article. Sorry to alarm you! SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Phew! Parrot of Doom 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Live performances

• Live performances are not covered - there is a brief mention of live performances in passing, but nothing organised and in depth. (Ah - I see, the live performances are dealt with in a different article).
  • Its a whole other article in itself. Where important, I've included details about touring (Barrett going mad, DSotM, Animals, and most importantly The Wall). I think though that the band is best known for its recorded work, rather than its live work, as most people can relate to the albums they may have in their collection. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

When splitting out material into a sub-article it is useful to leave a summary behind. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Essentially, what a reader would like in an article on Pink Floyd is for the lead to give an overview of the band covering the main points, such as a short statement about the band's reputation for their live performances ("Pink Floyd's work is marked by .... elaborate live shows"). The reader might then wish to go read a little bit more about the live performances - not an entire article, but something more than the brief sentence in the lead. So they would want to go to a section in the article that deals with the live performances. If they then wish more detailed information they can leave the parent article and visit the sub-article. I just had a look at Pink Floyd live performances to see if it would be possible to bring over the lead section from that article as a summary in this one, but the lead is not adequate. It means writing up a summary from scratch. SilkTork *^YES! 17:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can do that no problem. Give me a couple of days to sort it out. I'll create a section and summarise the links between albums and concerts, venues, and try to include how The Wall came about. Parrot of Doom 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. SilkTork *^YES! 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit more. As I add bits here and there, I'll join the prose up and attempt to create a summary of their 25-30 years of concerts. Parrot of Doom 14:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok I think I've covered the major points. Take a look and see what you think. Sorry its taken a while, other articles have grabbed my attention. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

• Almost the entire article is the history of the band, with a relatively short Legacy section, which perhaps doesn't quite get to grips with the reason the band are so notable.
  • I always have trouble with these sections. I'm open to suggestions. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, they can be tricky I agree. SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

General editing

• These are just thoughts at this stage, but there may be points, such as broad coverage and focus, which need to be considered as regards meeting the GA criteria.
  • I'd agree with this. Really, what it needs is a couple of editors like yourself to read through and make suggestions. I'd guess that about 95% or more of the article is my writing. Although this is one of the most popular pages on Wiki, with hundreds of watchers, most users make minor edits, and don't actually make the structural changes which may be required. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That is fairly typical. I often find that I can make one or two edits on an article which actually amount to over 50% of the content of an article that been in existence for five years with several hundred edits. Most edits tend to be very minor indeed! At other times I can be one of those people who drive by and make a very minor edit. I think I made some minor edits to this article a couple of years ago - if I recall, at that time (when it was a Featured Article) it said in the opening sentence that Pink Floyd was formed in Cambridge. I am willing to roll up my sleeves and get stuck in with editing this article - though that may have to wait a few days. SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• I'll finish reading it over the next couple of days, and then do an assessment. SilkTork *^YES! 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • • • The more the merrier as far as I'm concerned! Parrot of Doom 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• I'm looking at how the content matches the sources, OR, bias, etc. This tends to be a tricky aspect, and I usually pick on a handful of statements and see how they match up with the sources.

"Meddle is often considered to be the first 'definitive' Pink Floyd album" is a big statement. The source does support what is said - but I am concerned with the use of "often", as the source doesn't quite say that. None of these sources (found from the Meddle article) support the statement - [9], [10], [11], [12], though this one does - [13]. I think the statement just needs more careful wording to reflect what sources do indicate. Example: "Some reviewers have commentated that Meddle is a transitional album marking the departure from Syd Barrett's influence to the modern Pink Floyd." SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• • How about this? Parrot of Doom 13:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reworded to make it match the sources and put in the two sources. SilkTork *^YES! 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This statement appears unsourced: "Internal conflicts threatened the future of the band. Waters had taken to arriving at each venue alone, and departing immediately, and Gilmour's wife Ginger did not get along with Waters' new girlfriend. On one occasion, Wright flew back to England threatening to leave the band." SilkTork *^YES! 11:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Blake pp252-253 Parrot of Doom 13:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Waters was invited to join the band as the tour reached Europe, but declined, later expressing his annoyance that some Floyd songs were being performed again in large venues" appears to be unsourced.

Blake p367 Parrot of Doom 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I'll have a look at these later. Can I ask, which sources do you possess? First, bacon butties for my tea. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a bit more support for some of the contentious "inside" material, such as "The bassist had forbidden any members of Pink Floyd from attending his concerts" - which appears to come from Comfortably Numb — The Inside Story of Pink Floyd. A number of other sources feel it enough to simply mention Water's tour - [14] without the extra detail - and I wonder what value is being added by including it. I would rather see such contentious material rather more widely reported than from one source. SilkTork *^YES! 11:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be tricky. Blake is probably the most comprehensive history of Floyd, and I haven't really spotted any glaring mistakes. Mason errs on the side of caution (understandably), and the band's latter history post-dates Schaffner's book. I only just got the Povey book this week, so I'll see what that says. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a highly regarded book. My concern is in the selection of material from the book. I think going back to my earlier comment about having a section specially for band disputes, then selection of material which deals with internal disputes would be acceptable in such a section. But the same material is inappropriate when placed elsewhere - using comments such as "The bassist had forbidden any members of Pink Floyd from attending his concerts" when talking about the Pink Floyd tour, and when other sources do not, is pushing the dispute to the fore, and so is actually pushing hard against NPOV. What is the focus of the section? The dispute or the tour? Here is the paragraph:

Page 300 of Mason's book goes some way toward backing this statement up. I've added a note to that line, with a reference on the end of the note. Parrot of Doom 20:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Early rehearsals for the upcoming tour were chaotic, with Mason and Wright completely out of practice, and realising he'd taken on too much work Gilmour asked Bob Ezrin to take charge. As the new band toured throughout North America, Waters' Radio K.A.O.S. tour was, on occasion, close by. The bassist had forbidden any members of Pink Floyd from attending his concerts, which were generally in smaller venues than those housing his former band's performances. Waters issued a writ for copyright fees for the band's use of the flying pig, and Pink Floyd responded by attaching a huge set of male genitalia to its underside to distinguish it from his design. However, by November 1987 Waters appeared to admit defeat, and on 23 December a legal settlement was finally reached. Mason and Gilmour were allowed use of the Pink Floyd name in perpetuity, and Waters would be granted, amongst other things, The Wall. The bickering continued however, with Waters issuing the occasional slight against his former friends, and Gilmour and Mason responding by making light of Waters claims that they would fail without him.[229] The Sun printed a story about Waters, who it claimed had paid an artist to create 150 toilet rolls with Gilmour's face on every sheet. Waters later rubbished this story,[230] but it serves to illustrate how deeply divided the two parties had now become.[231] The tour continued into 1988, and then 1989. In Venice, the band played to an audience of 200,000 fans at the Piazza San Marco. The resulting storm of protest over the city's lack of toilet provision, first aid, and accommodation, resulted in the resignation of Mayor Antonio Casellati and his government.[232] At the end of the tour Pink Floyd released Delicate Sound of Thunder,[233] and in 1989 a concert video—Delicate Sound of Thunder concert video in 1989.

I have boldened the bits that are not about the tour but are about the dispute. As you can see the paragraph starts and finishes with the tour, but the majority of the paragraph is about the dispute. That's too much weight given to a subject that hasn't got its own section in the article. And even within a section devoted to the dispute there would be questions raised about including a disputed (and rather trivial story) about printed toilet rolls. SilkTork *^YES! 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of creating sections and subsections and moving things around so that articles can be organised like a bookshelf. I do not think a 'dispute' section is at all appropriate, there is simply far too much history to present this in any other way than chronologically; the disputes started during production of Wish You Were Here. That's a 10-year period you'd have to pick apart, it'd be like pulling threads from a tapestry. I think that 'spent force' as a section header is more than enough to illustrate the troubled relationships. I don't see an issue with NPOV - there are many things in each book that are not present in the other - Mason's comment about the pig in the hotel room isn't replicated in any other books (AFAIK), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. After having read the Blake book from cover to cover, I'm happy that it presents an entirely neutral biography of the band. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall

• Overall: I feel this is an excellent article in many respects. My concerns are largely the focus of the material. The lead needs to be expanded to cover the topic and article more fully. Other aspects of the band, such as the live performances, the critical response, and the early Syd Barrett singles, need more coverage. The history should be cut back, and dates inserted into the section headings. Some minor details regarding the sourcing / statements need attention. I'll notify the nominator and significant contributors. SilkTork *^YES! 11:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the article's excellence. However, I disagree that the lede needs to be expanded. After a couple minor edits, I think it is as perfect as it can be for the time being. The rest of the article has flow and is informative. Well referenced.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

I've added a Fair Use Rationale to [15] Parrot of Doom 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. SilkTork *^YES! 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Focus

Each time I look at the article I am concerned at how difficult it is to navigate through the material and get a grasp of the main details. I feel that a trimming is needed to remove some material that stands in the way of the reader getting to the essentials. I also feel that it would be helpful to follow common practice and put dates on the history sub-sections. The classic line up sub-division appears too soon as A Saucerful of Secrets contains Barrett. Some consideration could be given to division of history along these lines - Origins 1963-1964 / Syd Barret years 1964-1968 19/ Transition 1968-1975 / Roger Waters years 1976-1984 / David Gilmour years 1987-1994 / Live 8 to the present. SilkTork *^YES! 10:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, and isn't something I'd have a problem with. IIRC initially I had titles like 'and then there were four' and such, but another user renamed them all. Classic lineup is obviously wrong, perhaps something like "The decline of Barrett" or such? I'm slightly uncomfortable about "Roger Waters years" as Animals and The Wall contain some superb contributions from Gilmour (half of animals is Gilmour's work).

Feel free to trim anything you like - I've been doing this for a few weeks now, most recently as I've expanded the Album articles and moved things out. I'd like some of the funny stuff to remain (the pig in the hotel room, or shooting out the lights). Parrot of Doom 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the headings. See what you think. Parrot of Doom 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

happy

I'm pretty happy now that this fulfills the GA criteria. Parrot of Doom 10:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Philcha

Philcha has offered to take over this review for me, which I am very happy about. My Wikipedia access time has reduced considerably recently, and I do not wish to hold up this review any longer because I don't have the time to concentrate on what is required. Good luck. SilkTork *^YES! 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hold

Philcha is no longer able to take over this review. I have had another close look at the article to see if in good conscience I could pass it against my understanding of the criteria; however, I feel the WP:Lead does not quite cover the topic - another paragraph would be welcome, covering such matters as the important period between Barrett's departure and the recording of A Momentary Lapse of Reason - also there would need to be more adequate coverage of some of the items mentioned in the first two sentences: "earned recognition for their psychedelic and space rock music"; "their progressive rock music"; "the use of philosophical lyrics, sonic experimentation, innovative album cover art, and elaborate live shows" (this now has a decent section - enough perhaps for GA standards, though could do with some more attention to tighten it a bit (trim for focus), and at the same time add material to cover the period between the early London shows and the In the Flesh tour). Also, the amount of material on each of the albums is more than needed for this article which is intended to be an over view of the band's career, so the article does not stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Wikipedia:Summary style is our guidance here - especially WP:DETAIL, which explains quite clearly the background to why this article needs to be trimmed. The material in this article is very good, and can be usefully moved to the respective album articles.

I empathise with Parrot of Doom's hesitation in moving the material; when I spent some time editing the article to move material I found it difficult judging which material should be moved, and also felt a sense of regret in having to reduce this article. However, we must at all times remember we are not just writing for ourselves, but for a very broad audience. The aim of providing for all readers is very well captured in WP:DETAIL, so it is not a case or "removing" the material, but of organising it in a more appropriate manner.

I have a few options now. The option of passing as a GA is not open as I have explained above. I could again try to tackle the article myself, though I have found this a quite difficult and time-consuming task, one that my present domestic situation as a house-husband makes even more difficult (my daughter demands more of my attention than any of my previous jobs!). I could ask for someone else to take over the review (passing the buck really, but a fresh person might have the energy to get things done - and may also have a different perspective to myself - while my own view is that this article doesn't meet GA criteria, another reviewer might think otherwise). I could ask for a second opinion to check if I am not being overly scrupulous. I could put this on hold for another period to see if the work I have requested above is done. Or I could fail the article.

Failing is not something I like to do. My intention on taking on a nomination is to see the article through to GA status, even if it means doing the work myself. But I am not in a position to do the work myself on this article as indicated above. It is a viable option, however.

I will put the article on hold for seven days (until December 10), and in the meantime I will seek a second opinion. SilkTork *^YES! 08:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I just took a look at the article milestones, and when the article was delisted (quite rightly) from Featured status, the size and structure was acceptable. [16]. While the content and referencing needed attention, the way the article was organised was quite useful. I feel that the current organisation by album is not quite as helpful - it doesn't guide readers to the key moments in the group's history and development, nor does it highlight the significant albums. It may be that the previous structure could be combined in some way with the current structure. I do feel that very significant albums such as Dark Side, The Wall, and Piper could be given their own sections, while the other albums could be dealt with within key development sections, and some thought could be given to how those sections could be arranged.

Previous structure:

1.1 Origins: 1964–1965
1.2 Syd Barrett-led era: 1965–1967
1.3 Barrett's decline: 1967–1968
1.4 After Barrett's departure: 1968–1970
1.5 Breakthrough era: 1970–1975
1.6 Roger Waters-led era: 1976–1985
1.7 David Gilmour-led era: 1987–1994
1.8 Solo work and more: 1995–present

Current structure:

   1.1 Early years (1963–1967)
         o 1.1.1 Formation
         o 1.1.2 As "The Pink Floyd Sound"
         o 1.1.3 Signing with EMI
         o 1.1.4 The Piper at the Gates of Dawn
   1.2 Introduction of Gilmour and departure of Barrett (1968)
   1.3 Classic lineup (1968–1979)
         o 1.3.1 A Saucerful of Secrets
         o 1.3.2 Soundtracks
         o 1.3.3 Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother
         o 1.3.4 Meddle
         o 1.3.5 The Dark Side of the Moon
         o 1.3.6 Wish You Were Here
         o 1.3.7 Animals
         o 1.3.8 The Wall
   1.4 Waters-led era (1982–85)
         o 1.4.1 The Final Cut
         o 1.4.2 "Spent force"
   1.5 Gilmour-led era (1985–1994)
         o 1.5.1 A Momentary Lapse of Reason
         o 1.5.2 The Division Bell
   1.6 Classic lineup at Live 8
   1.7 Recent events

It may be a natural consequence that with the trimming of detail on each of the albums, that the sub-sections will be absorbed into the higher level sections (so Final Cut and Spent force, for example, will be dealt with under the one heading of Gilmour-led era). I have often found that getting an appropriate structure aids in both editing and reading an article. SilkTork *^YES! 09:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had a quick look, I don't think the current structure's too bad. The inclusion of level 3s just makes it look more cluttered in a side-by-side comparison, that's all. I've combined 1.6 and 1.7 though. As to content, there's definitely too much detail on each album and I'll try and contribute to this over the next few days, time permitting. I envisage it will naturally end up with some album subsections collapsing into single sections (for instance, without looking back at the text so this may be a bad example, A Saucerful of Secrets–Meddle). I'll also try and find material for the items you've identified as mentioned in the lead only, and then give the lead what polishing I can. Perhaps if the article can be fixed up during the hold period, you would have time to complete the review? We can revisit that aspect later anyway but perhaps you can communicate prior to feeling forced to fail, should it come to that, if you need someone else to finish the review. PL290 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the previous layout was that it assumed too much. The breakthrough era could just as easily be seen to have been 1968 onwards. I can't see David Gilmour agreeing that Waters dominated the band from WYWH onwards, and he'd be correct. The only thing I think most people would agree on is that TFC was almost a Waters solo album. I don't think there's much missing from the lead section, if anything, and I'm quite dubious of the argument that much more can be deleted from the album sections - perhaps a couple more technical details, but nothing about the interpersonal relationships. Nearly all of the band's history can be neatly summarised by what happened during the production of each album. If Pink Floyd are notable for one thing, its their refusal to grow old and tired, and their ability to keep their music fresh, and competitive with their contemporaries. I'm growing somewhat concerned that this GA procedure is becoming more like an FAC. Parrot of Doom 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PL290, I've asked for a second opinion, and will keep the review open until then at least. Parrot of Doom, I'm applying GA criteria rather than FA. For example, I am not concerned about how cites are formatted (a FA requirement) simply that there are cites. Sometimes a GA review can become demanding - it all depends on the circumstances. In the time I have been reviewing this article I think I have reviewed and passed at least seven others, failed one, and delisted another. I understand your reluctance to let go of material you have assembled for this article - it can feel like you've worked for nothing; however it is worth reflecting that there is a strong consensus of opinion that the album material needs trimming. As I have said above (and as I was doing when working on the article), the material need not be wasted, as it can be moved into the album articles. SilkTork *^YES! 15:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If consensus demands that the album sections be reduced to, say, a single paragraph each, I'll withdraw the nomination. Pink Floyd's history cannot be so easily summarised. It isn't a threat, or me throwing my toys from the pram, and I'm not concerned with losing any information since I've massively expanded most of the Album articles anyway (they're all several orders of magnitude larger than their relevant sections here). I have all the major books and they're significant tomes - for a reason. Many bands just knock out albums to earn a bit more money. Floyd never did that. Their musical output and interpersonal relationships are so heavily intertwined that I feel any significant cuts in those areas would seriously undermine the integrity of the article. I don't mind losing some of the technical aspects, but some of the things that Floyd became famous for - such as the Animals cover image - can't reasonably be removed, as the imagery was used for years thereafter. As for readers not having the patience to read such a large article, well they can always go and read about a band that doesn't have a 40-year history. Parrot of Doom 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In recompense for the discomfort you experienced during this GA Review, you now have evidence that the question of length and detail has been thoroughly examined, and the article passed at a size of 117 kilobytes as meeting GA criteria for focus. There is a feeling by PL290, which I share, that some more weight can be taken off the history section; however, the article is not excessively long, and does not break any guidelines. Regards! SilkTork *^YES! 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

I have reviewed the aspects identified as questionable under 3B and 2B/3A, and I have made some further changes to address these, as has PoD. My opinion follows.

Focus (3B)

The "album" sections have now received some trimming to more of a summary style. They could benefit from further condensing (e.g., record company matters sometimes interrupt the narrative, such as during the first US tour, and The Wall still stands out as rather long), but I believe they now meet the GA criterion of staying focussed. On this note, the section titles imply a specific album focus, which perhaps exaggerates the perceived lack of focus since they are only intended as milestones in a timeframe rather than always "album sections" per se. Expanding some section names, where significantly more than the album is covered (e.g., off the top of my head, "The Wall and Wright's departure"), would help by giving the reader more accurate expectations of section content.

Aspects only mentioned in the lead (2B/3A)

I note that "elaborate live shows" has already been addressed. I have looked at each of the others identified:

• "psychedelic music": cited several times in article text
• "space rock music": not mentioned in article, so has now been removed from lead
• "their progressive rock music": mentioned in article (though more could be made of it).
• "the use of philosophical lyrics" - this is clear from, for example, discussion of Dark Side and Wish You Were Here lyrics
• "sonic experimentation": cited several times in article text
• "innovative album cover art": cited several times in article text, including the involvement of Hipgnosis

Conclusion

I have not carried out a full GA review since other aspects have already received comprehensive coverage. In respect of these items identified above for which a second opinion was sought, I believe there remains scope for further improvement but the article now meets the GA criteria. PL290 (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that PL290. Passing as GA. SilkTork *^YES! 15:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Syd Barrett - Wish You Were Here recording appearance

According to this quote from an April 2006 David Gilmour interview with Mojo magazine, it wasn't the day of his first wedding when Syd Barrett turned up to the Wish You Were Here recording,

"The facts I'm certain of are that we were making that album at Abbey Road and Syd did turn up - anything else, I wouldn't count on its reliability. I don't know what song we were recording. I have no memory of him saying what's quoted as saying: 'You've played it once already, why do it again?' or 'Shall I do my solo now?' And it wasn't the day of my first wedding - that was later, in July - and Syd didn't come to it..."

--2009James (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.131 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

...As was already mentioned in the footnotes. Parrot of Doom 19:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Roger Waters driving force theories

The Theories:

1. In 1973 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group since he wrote all the albums lyrics for the band.
2. In 1976 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group since he made the names, styles, and structures of the tour and the next tours.
3. In 1977 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group because he wrote nearly all the lyrics and music for the animals albums and he did the for the next albums. (and also he made the style and the structures of the tours [same point 2]}
4. In 1979 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group because he made the concept, wrote all lyrics and nearly all music for the wall album and also nearly provide the vocals in the album as well as he made the style of the wall tour and he was the front man and the speak-man on the tour.
5. In 1982 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group because he made a full concept, wrote all lyrics and music , provide all the vocals for The Final Cut and producing the album by him-self. (which from we can see it is supported in the article).

so I know which one is right? and from what i see i prefer the point number 2.

Note: the point are realated to other. this mean if we point 1 that mean all point are right. While if take point 4, only 4 and 5 are right and 1,2 and 3 are not right.

Got me?? now I need to know?? 62.61.164.135 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't a Roger Waters' Fan Club chat forum and the above is totally irrelevant to the article unless of course 3rd party reliable sources can come up with any of the above "theories". What you, I or any other editor thinks about Waters is immaterial and is out of place on this talk page. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this article says that Waters began to lead the band in 1982 to 1985 and Gilmore from 1987 to 1994. Is there any 3rd party reliable sources for these information? 62.61.164.135 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, there are. Parrot of Doom 10:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Okay, where are they? 62.61.164.135 (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
        • What am I, your personal servant? They're listed in a nice big list at the bottom of the article. Parrot of Doom 11:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Man there are many links ???? which one of them that mentione the information?? 62.61.164.224 (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Most of them. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Yes guys, i checked them all. I didnt find any information says that Waters leadership to the band beagn in 1982 to 1985 and Gilmore from 1987 to 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.224 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
                • You checked all the books listed in the Bibliography? I find that claim to be doubtful. Parrot of Doom 17:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • what we are discussing my personnel matters here? common just show me the information so everyone be happy or just tell me that there is no "3rd party reliable sources" for the info and you just made it up. 62.61.164.224 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • Most of sites and critics states that Waters took control as soon as Barret went out and it wasn't until DSOTM and WUWH that he wrote all the lyrics for the these albums but he assume the full leadership in 1976 which he wrote all the lyrics and most of music for Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut. Thats why both Gilmour And Wright released their their solo albums at that era and all that times they arrangements with Waters. The article should say that (1976-1985) era is the era where Waters become the driving force in the band. not in 1982 as mentioned. I hope we made these changes based in these point of views which can be found in many official music sites as well as fan sites which I think we can call it "3rd party reliable sources". 62.61.164.224 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
                      • Really. So who wrote just about the entire first half of Animals then? Because it certainly wasn't Waters. I couldn't care less what music or fan sites say, because generally they're not considered reliable sources. While Waters may have been responsible for most of PF's lyrical output, and a great deal of its musical output after Wish You Were Here, nobody is going to tell me that he dominated Animals, or The Wall—because David Gilmour would have a great deal to say about that. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
                        • I also note you didn't answer my question about reading the bibliography, which indicates that you did not. Google searches of the internet won't really help you in this debate, which is why most of this article is sourced from published sources, not 'music sites' or 'fan sites' Parrot of Doom 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
                          • The entire first half of "Animals"??? You mean "Dogs" its only one track and Roger had credits for it. If you consider one track is half the album, than your judging on length of songs and I seriously cant think of length judgments right now. and I know that fan sites and not considered reliable sources but at least if the information is widely public and its well know to anyone who has a background about it, than Why should we looks for books??? I mean what about the public view, so your telling me that Wikipedia don't take public views?? Well its such shame. And one more thing can you tell what was the arguments and conflicts with Waters and the rest of the band about about? no need to look for a book to find the answer. I'll give it here:

The whole point about my leaving the band in the first place, was because Roger (Waters) was assuming control. He had written the whole of The Wall. It was his piece and he had the right to withdraw it and that was what he was threatening to do unless I left the band." - Richard Wright 1996 interview at http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/band/interviews/rww/rww_frame.html

also in one interview David Gilmour admits that Waters was behind the concepts albums and he was the driving force in the band:

Nick’s got a very sore bum, I imagine. He spent so many years sitting on that fence. Rick was curmudgeonly about things and wanted us to move in a more pure, maybe jazzy direction. He was always moaning and groaning, but he didn’t really mean it half the time. We all have very different personalities is the truth of the matter. We were all very, very happy to have a driving force like Roger who wanted to push for these concepts. I don’t remember it being a big issue at the time. Jointly and severally, we wanted each piece of music to have its own magic. As an instrumental piece, we wanted it to have those little hints of magic about it before we tied it even into a lyric. Then, that lyric either has the same mood and strengthens the mood of the music, or the music then strengthens the lyric, or sometimes it’s because the music and the words conflict that it creates it. It’s not always the same way. If anything, at the end of Dark Side, I thought there were one or two moments where the lyric was stronger than the music that was carrying it. David Gilmour interview at http://www.pinkfloydz.com/introguncutjune2003.htm

62.61.164.224 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• And thus you demonstrate your lack of knowledge on these matters. I'll waste no more time on this claptrap. Parrot of Doom 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Come on man, is it my fault that I dont have that Book? 62.61.164.224 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • They're all available on eBay and Amazon. That's where we got them from. It's our responsibility to provide links to appropriate references, it's not our responsibility to provide you with reading material. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is in fact quite pertinent, especially in regard to how the article is to be structured. This [17] is a useful source for looking at the claim in the Lead that Pink Floyd were a "progressive music" band, and that author feels that it was 1973 when Waters became the dominant member of the band.

This [18] is also useful as it indicates that questions of who controlled the band (and which aspects of the band were more important, lyrics or music) are at the heart of the notable dispute. It would be helpful to have some more direct mention of the dispute in the article, in a section called "Dispute" perhaps, as it features quite prominently in articles and books on the band. An encyclopedia article which attempts to have broad coverage might be expected to give readers some background detail (collected from reliable sources) on the dispute. I certainly would find that very useful! SilkTork *^YES! 10:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This also indicates that Waters was the "mastermind" of the band in the 1970s. SilkTork *^YES! 10:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This one says that Waters had "near complete control" at the time of Animals. So it is a matter of perspective. Perhaps "Waters-led" is not an appropriate section heading, as it is too sharp a definition. SilkTork *^YES! 10:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• SilkTork you are man! thats what I'm trying to tell you guys. We really need to makes some changes regarding the new information which comes from "3rd party reliable sources". 62.61.164.141 (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• • So whats new about this discussion? Any decisions any thoughts? 62.61.164.180 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Article building is as much about research and reflection as it is about putting material into the article. What you have above is links to some sources that provide useful material, as well as some thoughts on how the article can be structured. Not to say that the thinking is correct, nor that any action should be taken on those thoughts. SilkTork *^YES! 15:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think if I got the point or not?? However, Good Luck 62.61.164.192 (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Space Rock

I removed Space Rock from the lead since the article makes no mention. I suggest it remains absent from the lead, as confusion is likely to result from the more recent redefinition of the term to refer to ambient music. However, somewhere in the sections dealing with Floyd's earlier works, I suggest the article could usefully mention its application during that period, and its relevance to the early lyrical themes, as is in fact done by the article Space Rock. PL290 (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see User:A Knight Who Says Ni/Essays#The "genre" field in infoboxes in articles about musicians, albums and songs Parrot of Doom 14:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's about infoboxes. It mentions other things in passing, noting that Floyd are "often regarded as pioneers of space rock", and that some query this. Having read the essay, my suggestion is still the same. My point is not about infoboxes so I'm not sure what your point is! PL290 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gilmour-led era (1985–1994)

I dont think that David Gilmour took the leadership in Pink Floyd between 1985-1994. Maybe he was in the Momentary Lapse of Reason era but I seriously doubt that he led in The Division Bell. This album is less forced and more of a group effort than previous one as the other members in the band contribute in writing of the songs. 62.61.164.252 (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what you think or even what you doubt, unless you can come up with reliably sourced info that supports your position then I rather doubt it is going to change anytime soon... at least not without being reverted anyway. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the hole led era of both Waters and Gilmour sections are complacently wrong. I dont say that the current is bad, but I more likely to prefer the previous one. Unless if some changes happens that could be more fair to who led Pink Floyd.

DavidGilmours.solo (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In English that would be...? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think Roger Waters/David Gilmour led the band in their respective eras"

Whole-heartedly untrue, seeing as a great deal of the article is written using Nick Mason's biography of the band. It's not fair to the other members, but Roger Waters was quite clearly a dictator, and David Gilmour quite clearly brought the band back together. If anything needs to be wondered, its whether or not Bob Ezrin should be considered a member of the band from The Wall onwards, seeing as he made more contributions to those 4 albums than both Mason and Wright put together. The leaders, however, are pretty evident - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to become a discussion forum on Floyd rather than discussion on the article. Regardless, supposition and conjecture is irrelevant to this article and unfairness to either Gilmore or Waters is also irrelevant. They are quite free to write their own books, in which case I'm sure they would be purchased/borrowed by many of this article's editors and in turn quoted by said editors. Until such time as that happens the current discussion is moot. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd discography Timeline external link

Hello Fred the oyster and thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia

Please help me understand why the Pink Floyd Discography Timeline external link I posted do not comply with our guidelines for external links.

I think it is a great enhancement to the page. It doesn't link to any commercial site, and it adds new information to the page by listing the discography in a visual way that isn’t available elsewhere.

Thank you

addyfe

It only loads the top banner for me in Firefox. The rest of the page below that is blank. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it simply isn't necessary. There are already enough legitimate external links in the article. Your suggested link doesn't say anything the article doesn't already cover, it doesn't have any official connections and it's a Flash only page that someone who doesn't wish to have Flash installed can't see. It's no different to the accepted practice of not linking to fan sites regardless of how pretty they are. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

There's been a minor edit war with an anon IP insisting that all names under which the band members have played, be included in the infobox.

My view is that only those names which the band which was recognisably Pink Floyd used should be included. This would be pretty much anything following the arrival of Syd Barrett. The other names (Megadeths, etc) are, in every published source I have, given only the briefest of mentions; which leads me to believe that if those authors don't think it important, then this article should not either.

I've brought this discussion here to attempt to resolve this issue. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The article even only makes brief mention of it. The infobox should provide important information at a glance. In effect a too-lazy;didn't-read. The Tea Set was the only name besides The Pink Floyd Sound that they played noticeable gigs under, and the Megadeaths needn't be in the infobox. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for one month to prevent the edit warring. If people feel this is too strong a remedy please let me know and I'll unprotect. SilkTork *^YES! 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain its necessary on that basis - but I won't particularly object, since just about every IP edit to this article is incorrect, or vandalism, and is reverted. Now I have one less thing to worry about for a month. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Wright was since 1987 again a member of Pink Floyd

Dear all, Richard Wright left Pink Floyd in 1979 (he was a paid musician for the Wall concerts). Since 1987 he was again a member of Pink Floyd. He played additional keyboards and did some backing vocals on the 1987 album. He stood on all the group (Pink Floyd) pictures, in contrast to paid musicians like Jon Carin and Dick Parry (they weren't members of Pink Floyd). Wright played also on all the Pink Floyd concerts since 1987.

A lot of reliable sources confirm the fact that Richard Wright again was a member of Pink Floyd since 1987:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/sep/16/pinkfloyd.popandrock1
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2966176/Pink-Floyds-Dave-Gilmour-pays-tribute-to-bands-founder-Richard-Wright.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/arts/music/16wright.html?_r=1
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/richard-wright-keyboard-player-with-pink-floyd-933004.html
• http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/disco/amlor/amlor_album.html

So, it's very clear. Richard Wright was a member of Pink Floyd in the periods 1965-1979 and 1987-1996. So it should be mentioned in the article like this. Everyone agree?

Kind regards 84.198.73.115 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree. Was there any discussion about this? Wright officially returned to Pink Floyd. It's even mentioned in the source? Floydian Tree (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Wright did not appear on the gatefold photograph for A Momentary Lapse of Reason. He was a contributing musician only, and paid a salary. He was not, contractually, a member of the band, and was present mostly to make clear to Waters that the band then was more than just Gilmour and Mason. Povey, Mason, Schaffner, and Blake all confirm this, and those four expert sources trump a few poorly-researched newspaper articles—none of which actually state that Wright was a member of the band in 1987.

I'm quite happy to revisit these sources to confirm the exact point in time he did rejoin the band, but it was most certainly not in 1987. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mason (2005), p289 - "Rick joined proceedings quite late in the day and was quarantined from any costs or legal repercussions from Roger. This was mainly a practical matter. There was some confusion over Rick's position in the band. When David and I first wanted to talk to Rick we discovered that buried in his leaving agreement from 1981 was a clause that prevented him from rejoining the group. Consequently we had to be careful about what constituted being a member of the band; only David and I appeared on the cover of the album." Parrot of Doom 19:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Blake (2008), p317 - "There were one or two legal reasons which made it a little trickier if Rick rejoined ... A clause in his levaing agreement disqualified him from rejoining the band as a full member ... and to be honest Nick and I didn't particularly want to get in extra partners - we had put up all the money and taken the biggest risks, and so we wanted to take the largest cut." Parrot of Doom 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In Glenn Povey's book "The complete history of Pink Floyd" is mentioned the following: "Completing the reunion, Wright was now playing full with the band. In this role he contributed substantially to the Pink Floyd soundtrack La Carrera Panamericana (page 244)." The soundtrack was written in 1991. Wright was thus surely a member since 1991.Christo jones (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If interpretation is the name of the game "with" doesn't necessarily equate to "in". It seems to me that if Gilmour and Mason didn't consider him to be a 'legal' member of the band then I'd say that was pretty conclusive. They're certainly more in the know than any of us. So if that's what they said then that's what we must accept. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

the words "completing the reunion" are important. From which year are the following group pictures?

• http://www.polarmusicprize.org/newSite/gfx/thumb/2008/PF3%201987-onwards.jpg
• http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/03bLgZycfhgU9/610x.jpg
• http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45020000/jpg/_45020397_pink_floyd_1989pa226.jpg

From the years 1987-1989! Where are Dick Parry, Guy Pratt and the others? Not on these pictures, because on these pictures stand only Pink Floyd members.Christo jones (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are pictures of three middle-aged men. Why don't you look at the two sources quoted above? You really think that three random internet pictures are somehow a more reliable source than those books? Parrot of Doom 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever inferences you get from the pictures is synthesis and original research. The expert sources already given should be given priority over anything you, I or any other editor can come up with on their own. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous, perception is sometimes very important. Wright was surely a member of Pink Floyd, maybe not contractually, but that makes no sense. Who are we to say that he wasn't a member of Pink Floyd in 1987, just because a sentence in his contract? In theory he wasn't, but in reality he was surely a member. This should be changed, asap. Thanks.212.1.1.63 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not saying he wasn't a member - the sources are. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned. Parrot of Doom 15:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha, what a joke! Richard Wright wasn't a member of Pink Floyd between 1987 and 1993? You're kidding. Mason (2005) did not say that Wright wasn't a member in those years.

"When David and I first wanted to talk to Rick we discovered that buried in his leaving agreement from 1981 was a clause that prevented him from rejoining the group. Consequently we had to be careful about what constituted being a member of the band; only David and I appeared on the cover of the album". -> says nothing, surely not that Wright was not into Pink Floyd since 1987?

At this moment it's four votes FOR and two votes AGAINST. It's time to correct the article. Wright was a Pink Floyd member since 1987.193.190.224.1 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, and your attempt to use the quote from Mason to bolster your case is silly. Perhaps I should quote p270 of Schaffner, who says "As for Wright, his rehabilitation would not extend to being reinstated as a full Floyd member and partner (partly, he said, on the advice of his own lawyers, who warned that he would then be vulnerable to anti-Floyd lawsuits from Waters; partly, admitted Gilmour, because he and Mason 'didn't particularly want to get in extra partners - we had put up the money and taken all the big risks, and so wanted to take the largest cut'). Instead, Rick was placed on a wage, amounting to $11,000 a week by the time the band hit the road. He was also guaranteed a few 'points' of the new Floyd's recordings and merchandising." Parrot of Doom 18:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)