Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Featured Music Project evaluation

Pink Floyd has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Comprehensive

The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.

• Comprehensive: Legacy and influences are poorly covered

There are actually sound samples for "On the Run" and "Eclipse" on the DSotM page that we might use; does anyone have samples from other albums? InTheFlesh? 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to make some (from The Wall, Meddle, WYWH, or Echoes -- these are what I have in digital); suggestions of what songs to choose?Rotring 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I made and added about 30 clips (two songs from each album, although DSotM has 4 with the two above) since he last posted; take a look here and see if you think any others need adding. - dharmabum 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On the "Featured Article" talk page, some people had issue with the use of singular/plural in relation to "Pink Floyd", "The Floyd", and "the band". I changed most of the stuff that mentioned "the band" to singular, but there should be a consensus as to whether "Pink Floyd" is considered singular or plural (it occurs both ways in the article; recent articles linked to on a Google News search also do not have a consensus). InTheFlesh? 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We're getting out of my comfort zone regarding the specifics of grammar, but I would think Pink Floyd or The Floyd would be considered singular, as its a proper noun which refers to a group of people. If they were called "The Pink Floyds", it would be plural, with the term "a Pink Floyd," referring to a single member of the band. But part of the issue is just convention; we don't refer to Keith Richards as "a Rolling Stone", but we do refer to Mickey Dolenz as "a Monkee". - dharmabum 21:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Compilation Albums

Do you think we should add albums such as "Relics," "Works," etc. to the box on the bottom of the page? InTheFlesh? 04:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The box on the bottom of the page is actually this template, with its own talk page. It's worth noting that people had agreed earlier to remove "less important" albums from the list, and generally people like there to be a talk page consensus before modifying a template as a single change to that template affects dozens of other pages. Take the suggestion over that way and set up a proposal. I personally think a sub-section for "Compilations" wouldn't be bad, especially considering how unique a couple of them are in being the only official source for some songs ("Embryo", "Biding My Time") - dharmabum 07:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Vic Singh

http://www.sydbarrett.org/vicsinghinterview.htm --asydwaters 08:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! - dharmabum 08:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tea, not T

According to Mason's book - and the photos of things like setlists therein - the early proto-Floyd was called Tea Set, not T-Set. PurplePlatypus 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Schaffner (evidently erroneously) had them as T-Set, so that's why I changed it when I was going through and referencing the article. I don't have Mason's book yet... can you give me a page number from his book so the correct name can have a proper citation? - dharmabum 02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you. There's an early logo that clearly spells out "Tea" on page 20 and the running order for a multi-act bill that included them on page 30. I haven't checked the text in detail (the book doesn't have an index, which would be very nice for stuff like this) as the first reference to the name would be ideal, but the name change also takes place on page 30, and is as the article describes it (it better be - I'm the one who added that bit in its current form, and that's what I was going by). PurplePlatypus 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with the p. 30 reference, as the name change is the most important bit. Thanks a bunch. - dharmabum 22:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Echoes Hub

The situation seems to be resolved, and the user blocked indefinitely. Rotring 22:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In harmony with Dharmabum420's actions towards that matter, I've beem removing Echoes Hub from some Pink Floyd related articles (Pink Floyd, David Gilmour, Roger Waters, Syd Barrett), but it keeps making its way back in. Maybe we should get close to a consensus, to (try to) avoid constantly editing the pages back and forth: is this link worth mentioning or not, in a featured article candidate? My opinion is that it is not , on the grounds that:

1. it is not a true website, but rather an access point to P2P trading of illegal material (ROIO: "Although a copyright violation case could be made against possessors and distributors of ROIOs, most record companies (so far) have not done so, viewing such 'rarities' trading as harmless provided that they are not being done for profit. This could change however, at any time.")
2. WP:EL: "What should not be linked to: (...) 3. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming."

People? Rotring 15:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's a pretty clear statement ("Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates"). Good enough for me. Joey Q. McCartney 02:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to leave an edit summary, but see above for reason I deleted the link. Joey Q. McCartney 02:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This site is in conjunction with all legal issues of music trading. It is perfectly legal to own and make copies of demo songs, live recordings, interviews etc. and trade them with "friends" over the Internet. Most other sites on the resoucers link promote the Echoes Hub. The Echoes Hub provides concert information, forums, chat, external links of it's own newsletter. - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

You forgot to sign: 71.242.208.204, i.e., the user who's been adding the link. And, from where I stand, this kind of trade is not legal, record companies just haven't bothered with the matter (attention: this is how understand it, I'm not saying that it is right or wrong); but what really matters, in my opinion, is that the legality is questionable, and might bring problems to the feature article candidacy of the article. If I am wrong or being excessively alarmed, I am welcome to neutral enlightment thereto. Until then, as a sign of my good faith, I won't remove the link. - Rotring 17:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

All links that offer any types of downloads of material that is in question should be removed from the wiki list. Echoes Hub should not be singled out. This means ALL external links must be removed, which I and everyone else will be totally against. It would not take much time to show cause of each external link on the wiki site is offering concert information and download location information for these concerts. On the other hand, this service that is provided by Echoes Hub not only enchances the sales of Pink Floyd official material, but offers younger music lovers a chance to hear material that they cannot hear anywhere else. It is well known amongst traders that Pink Floyd's stance on unoffical material is not a hot topic, and they would rather their unofficial material be traded for free, rather than sold by bootleggers. This situation has been idle for 30 years and you are now beating a dead horse. Record companies are not an issue with this, because they do not own the recordings, the thousands of tapers themselves do. Now if we were talking official material then I agree there were would be a huge issue with this. - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

That's bullshit, you know it's bullshit, and regardless of that there's a rule against posting your own site anyway. It's referred to as linkspam and isn't allowed on Wikipedia, so go away. PurplePlatypus 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've taken a look at the site, but you have to download a P2P app to use the site at all. Even regardless of the legal issues related to the site or the fact the site operator is the one adding it:

WP:EL What should not be linked to: (...) 7. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.

It seems to me that WP:EL is very unambiguous about this issue. - dharmabum 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Take your foul mouth elsewhere please. The Echoes Hub provides concert roio information, forums, chat, and it's own newsletter. It does not require any app to use the site. The site is over 800 pages and growing. I do not know if you viewed the site but it is standard html - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

Let's see; your ROIO information isn't authoratative; your forums recieve less than 2 posts per day; you chat is tied to the 3rd-party application; and your newsletter has three issues in a little over a month, mostly advertising what your site has to offer, the benefits of your P2P software and soliciting donations. Seriously, give it up, your link will never be considered acceptable by the WP community unless it becomes far more popular, and even then, the legal issues involved in ROIO trading will probably keep it out of the WP. - dharmabum 08:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: Wikipedia has policies that prohibit

• Posting links to your own site
• Using Wikipedia as a way of advertising your site or product (free or not)
• Posting links to illegal sites (which yours is, period, regardless of your nonsensical defense of it - and when I see bullshit, which pretty much everything you've claimed is, I'll call it bullshit as I please)
• Posting links to sites that require third-party applications to use
• Lying

The above pretty much sums up the whole reason you're here. Certainly your intentions have absolutely nothing to do with helping write an encyclopedia; you are here for the sole purpose of promoting your Web site. In other words, you are here exclusively to break multiple Wikipedia policies. You have nothing positive to contribute, you will not be listened to or taken seriously under any circumstances, you are not welcome here, and you will be blocked or banned if you don't leave voluntarily. GET LOST. PurplePlatypus 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the Three-revert rule. And by the way, the promotion link extends not only to the Pink Floyd-related articles I mentioned, but also to Bootleg recording. —Rotring 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"It does not require any app to use the site." — Wikipedia rules don't mention using the site, but rather, and I quote, "view the relevant content". Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the recordings are the relevant content (quoting again, this time quoting yourself: "The International Echoes Hub [...] is dedicated to the preservation of unofficial live recordings of Pink Floyd and their member's solo works from 1966 to the present."), and they do require a 3rd party application. —Rotring 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The site's front page makes it clear that it is primarily if not solely about p2p trading, notwithstanding the presence of a chat, a forum, a newsletter, and concert information (all of which appear to be primarily or solely about p2p trading, by the way). A special app is required if one wishes to download the music. Joey Q. McCartney 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC) See my comments further up in this section. Joey Q. McCartney 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How obviously ignorant you are. Almost all sites lilsted on the external links solicits donations, offer roios for download which makes them all illegal in yoru eyes. I am not here to promote my website as this website is not mine. I have helped work on it for over a year, and am one of the administrators thats all. I think adding a links to pro-active Pink Floyd Communities is something positive. A special app is required for 1/10th of that site. There are many more opportunites for other ventures, this is only a small part of it.

Now should I list each site on this wiki, the external links with DIRECT ILLEGAL downloads available and spell it out for you? The Echoes Hub offers nothing like this. In fact from your standpoint, I feel that you are purely targeting the Echoes Hub as proven by your allowance of these other sites. First by pointing out that it's forums get little use (uhhh maybe because they were just started a few weeks ago)? Hello? Anyone home?

And this will gladly be an issue taken up with wikipedia. And because of your targeting one community and letting others slide with more abhorrations, it will be an enjoyment to take 20, 30, 40 minutes to 2 hours of your day every day of the year to remove the echoes hub listing. Think of all the negative energy you are going to spend, and the time taken away from your work, family and hobbies by making sure that a listing is not under your authority (which you dont have). I see weeks....... weeks! And when the word is spread to hundred of members with access to change the wiki page how are you going to keep up?

Bottomline again is you are allowing other pages to be listed here under the same circumstances and are showing preferential treatment. Everything goes under these guidelines or nothing remains. You might call yourself balanced of judgement but you heavy winds are at your side. Please think more clearly and let's make a cooperative decision. No use to insult the website, that wont do you any good. It just makes you look worse. That website has almost 1000 pages of true factual information. It is also endorsed by each one of the other links here, proven to be a reliable community.

Why did Roger shout numbers during Pigs the 1977 tour? I'd like you to answer this question please. - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

How obviously persistent you are (and ignorance towards conveniently formatting and signing - with four tildes - your messages also proliferates). Now, directly addressing your points of view:

• You can list each site on this article that yada yada (that is, if it doesn't mean you'll take away time from work, family and hobbies), but the fact is: the doubtful legality of the content is just the tip of the reasons why the link is not worthy of figuring in any Wikipedia article, and we, in an effort (that you don't seem to value) of making Pink Floyd a featured article, specifically object that it has its place in this article. Like it was said more than once, WP:EL is very clear when it comes to needind a 3rd party application to view the relevant content, which, in the case of Echoes Hub, are Pink Floyd bootlegs (that's why you insist in putting your link both in Pink Floyd-related articles and in the Bootleg recording article; if your site is so much "more than P2P", why don't you submit the link to articles about Forums, Chat, etc., and see if it is welcome either?).
• Besides the 3rd party app issue, there's the self-promotion issue. You are lying when you say you are not affiliated with the website, and you also know I have e-mails of yours (one of them correspoding, verbatim, to one of your positngs here), and the address is far from misleading to the fact that you are the owner of the site.
• Your contribution history leaves no sign of doubt: you are not contributing to Wikipedia nor to this specifical article. You have added no content but the link, in bold, on the top of link lists, disrespecting common sense in geenral, Wikipedia etiquette in particular, and the 3RR even more in particular.
• Repeating myself again: don't think this is a cruzade for copyright protection or something against your site in particular; I'm just thinking in the best interest for the featuring of the article, and I think this applies to almost everybody else involved in this content dispute.
• Don't worry about our free time, nor with any of us having to "sleep next to the computer to prevent this". We're scattered along various time zones, so we can even make shifts.

Rotring 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to provide me answers for to the question I asked you (obviously ignorantly or trying to evade them). And to respond to your comments above, you are incorrect with many of your assumptions. Now you are making fun of my name? How childish you are if you much reach to levels of direct insults to the way someone or something looks.

Are you going to answer my question about the 1977 tour? Do you know the answer, being such a self proclaimed Pink Floyd expert that you are?

If you are going to remove listings for certain content, then for starters, each of the forums mentioned above has direct download links to similar material that is traded at the Echoes Hub. They are going to need to be removed as well. - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

Fun of your name? Where's that? If you are refering to the observation I made in one of the e-mails you sent me (there's talk pages, you know?), it was just an expression of enormous doubt that your name is... Marooned (nickname maybe; if it's a name, wow). Furthermore, nor have I ever proclaimed I'm a Floyd expert (and, last time I checked, that's what "self-proclaimed" is all about), nor is this discussion about Pink Floyd expertise, and that's why I simply ignored your question (on the grounds that it is completely off-topic). This is an article's discussion page, not a Pink Floyd bulletin board. Your participation in this discussion is turning from "defending the existance of a link in an article" to outright "trolling". —Rotring 17:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me enlighten you with a few facts. Although I speak directly to Marooned everyday and I can assure you I am NOT him. LOL For he wouldn't have had the decency to keep this conversation going for so long. He can't be bothered with the this and asked months ago if I would accept this role. It's just recently that you have gotten involved.

The reason why Roger shouted out numbers during Pigs on the 1977 Animals tour was so tapers and collectors could easily identify a recording. So again you are wrong with your assumption of it being off-topic. I had the luck to witness this myself as my Uncle explained what it meant (in California). From the sounds of it you are still learning about Pink Floyd from the help of books and transferring documents into this wiki. I sincerely respect how you are contributing the transfer of information but it has already been done you see. Long before wiki existed. You are re-inventing the wheel while forgetting an important factor when holding up your head in public. And that's equality.

http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/roio/

After studying one of the links here. It looks like Neptune Pink Floyd has their own Bit Torrent (special 3rd party software) and RoIO section and you seem to have no problem with allowing them to list their "illegal material" here. Wiki has been notified of this and you can be certain your showers of negativity will rain on your entire battle of self-proclamation. Oh that's right you proclaimed you are NOT an expert of Pink Floyd which now questions me on your existence in this topic. I see you feel you are doing a good duty to your fellow americans but then again... so did George Bush right? - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

The Neptune Pink Floyd site contains current Pink Floyd news in addition to various ROIOs. I don't think that this would violate the External links policy, as the site can function as a reference without the use of 3rd party software, unlike EchoesHub. InTheFlesh? 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, nobody here is an "expert" on Pink Floyd, which is the entire point of Wikipedia - we are all well-informed fans with different information or topics of expertise, who by collaborating produce a quality article. Second, Rotring is Portugese, so your completely inappropriate jibe about George W. Bush is pretty far off the mark. Last, WP:EL is clear that you don't have to be the actual site operator to be spamming, just affiliated with them, and you yourself said that you are here on his behalf. Please stop this pointless argument. A consensus of editors with long histories of useful contributions to the Wikipedia has determined your site is not appropriate for the Wikipedia according to the relevant policy, and you're here for only one purpose - to promote a website on behalf of its operator. You've been warned about link spamming by an administrator uninterested in the Pink Floyd article itself, as well. Your site will not be appearing here for the forseeable future. Instead of fighting with people on talk pages about link spamming, how about trying to make some useful contributions to the Wikipedia? - dharmabum 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice PFFF has been asked by two different administrators - much more politely than I was able to bring myself to do - to stop violating Wikipedia policies. Thus far he has not responded. PurplePlatypus 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (As for the whole legality issue - bottom line, the site's primary, bordering on exclusive, purpose is distributing creative work without the permission of the copyright holder. Any claim otherwise is disproved by the very text of the link this edit war is about and by PFFF's own choice of Wikipedia handle. It is possible, for all I know, that the copyright holder chooses to turn a blind eye to, or even tacitly approves of, such activity - I doubt it, but I can't prove it's false - but for our purposes it doesn't matter. Legally the lack of explicit permission is the only relevant consideration. Frankly if PFFF is not aware of that he shouldn't be running or promoting such a site. His notion of copyright law can only be described as mythological.)

PurplePlatypus, copyright is, indeed, a somewhat shady area; it is possible for an artist to turn his head to the bootlegs as a copyright infringement, but then there would have to be a list of "Artists for whom bootlegs are OK", which is absurd. Despite that, copyright is secondary here; the whole point can be restricted to what Wikipedia policies concern, like it is in the block request: 3RR, self-promo, 3rd party and, as of lately, personal attack — quite enough. —Rotring 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be unambiguous at times - take a look at bt.etree.org or archive.org, which provide torrents or downloadable files of concerts by audience taping-friendly bands such as The Grateful Dead or Dave Matthews Band, which include documentation of permission from the bands or their lawyers. But in absence of a statment from Floyd or their legal representatives, ROIO trading is just not legal, and if they fully approved of it, there's nothing stopping them from giving Internet traders legal permission to do it - at which point our friend's site would be redundant, as the large, established legal sites like those above would begin carrying them. - dharmabum 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Enough with the reverberated insults. I am Marooned, the owner of Echoes Hub. If you have mistakenly identified another party as me I apologize. I just read through the above bantering and it appears to be a pissing match between two hard headed parties, not directly influenced by Wiki standards and only using certain Wiki standards as a defense mechanism when applicable. This is not right and those involved with the direct insults are having their leadership skills questioned.

At this time I would insist that all parties in the above debate, recognize their sophmoric behavior by forgetting who is wrong and who is right and take this personal battle away from the facts. If anyone has any questions or comments about Echoes Hub please direct everything towards myself. Thank you very much.

This is what I have experienced: Months back, someone had notified me that a few of our sister sites had been linked here and my site should be too. It's been in the build state for two years and constantly updated. I came here and checked it out and told them go ahead. Turned out they are not too savvy and never did it. I asked one of the moderators to take care of it then, because I wasn't supposed to. If this was in error of rules I apologize.

However, this is far from the current problem. The current problem is that although a few Wiki Pink Floyd members here have great writing skills which may be somewhat impressive, they impressions been over shadowed by sarcasm and predjudism in which I dont want to be a part of. I don't want to be associated with those who are inexperienced with trading and running a listing site. This is what has happened here, plain and simple. Creativity and ignorance are what make common man and I sure hope you all revitalize yourselves after reading this as it will be an important step to take while going through puberty in the world of Pink Floyd. Remember when you're father told you, "Son, someday you'll understand". ?

With that being said, I am not arguing for Echoes Hub to be listed here. I am arguing my witnessing your constant necessity of purging "certain wiki violations policies" under special homemade created rules for this particular instance. This was immature and blantantly obvious. You were unable to control your emotions that were allowed to be entertwined with your work.

I posted here to brandish a new heightened awareness for you. Not argue with pig headed, inconsistent capturings of certain sentences of the wiki guidelines and use them to my advantage. You should be ashamed.

But who am I to tell you this?

Forget Echoes Hub's listing here. But let's do one thing together. Let's find common ground with all the positive and negative aspects of the external links listed here by outlining each of the current listed external sites, what they include, and how they differ from each other when it comes to what each party interprates as legal. - This may take a few days but you are not afraid of a little hard work are ya fellas? I mean it's for the welfare of your true inner composure to yourself and benefit of wiki readers right?

One should always want to search for the light, the truth, and want to help others. If a person is not willing to do any of that, then they surely do not have the capacity to be making management-like decisions for others do they?

I need help and am asking you directly to help me.

My first request: Please help me identify why it is ok for other sites to have downloads of recordings available from their website to be listed here, but not ok for Echoes Hub to be listed here and there are no downloads available from www.echoeshub.com ?

- Marooned

I would prefer not to open this can of worms again. Bear in mind that this argument sparked an admin to strip all of the external links out of the article, and I don't think anyone particularily wants that. It got out of hand through several tempers, both from Wiki editors and your moderator. It's worth noting to someone not overly familiar with Wikipedia that it came in the middle of a Featured Article review, which is one of the most intensive processes you can go through and something that could endanger the process can cause tempers to flare. I apologize for letting mine get out of hand, and for getting involved in the debate about legality (I'm an avid ROIO collector, and although I think legality could still be a problem for Wikimedia, I have no problems with it myself).

The main problem I have with Echoes Hub in regards to Wikipedia external link policy is that it requires DC++ software to take advantage of. Neptune Pink Floyd, which also has ROIO's available, has many other resources (photos, news, etc), but we both know that Echoes Hub is primarily there for ROIO trading (yes, there's a newsletter, forum and concert info, but they supplement the trading and are not entirely exclusive of it). Sites which even use Flash are frowned on by WP:EL, let alone software as specialized as DC++ (which is only available to Windows users, further cutting the number of browsers who can use the link down). If Echoes Hub had reasonably high forum traffic or other Floyd resources to speak of it would be fine, but in absence of those, it's tough to justify its inclusion. - dharmabum 21:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So if I put two colons in here will it indent? We will see. Ok, fair enough Dharmabum420. Looks as if you did take the time to check out the site and thats appreciated. The site was originally just informational content on how to get on the hub two years ago, but has grown at a phenominal rate in the last year. The message forums are new, the newsletters are only bi-monthly and the rest of the site was built around the focus of trading. I think the best bet would be to remove this article as well, if you feel wiki would not benefit from the mentioning of the site until the site was promoted at a different angle which I doubt it will be in the future. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I apologize for the inconsistencies spoken above and sure do not want our site to be further interuptions with your work.

If I may make one suggestion... I think there is possibility for more intense articles here as this site has primarily focused on the basics. How do you feel about using some excerpts from Inside Out and other books including the scanning of more pics? Are there space limitations? - Marooned

There would be copyright issues with excerpting books, of course. Remember that this one of many encyclopedia articles on the Wikipedia, not an in-depth fan site with detailed information of interest to an avid 20-year fan. Look at it this way: the article should be able to fully inform someone about the band who doesn't know a thing about them, without being so long as to turn them off getting through it. Take a look at how detailed this article is compared to Floyd's entry in Encyclopedia Britannica as your basis of comparison.

Take a look at another Wikipedia article like, say, dinosaur. If you want to know something about dinosaurs, you'll learn a lot from this article. But if it was written to teach people with graduate degrees in paleontology something new, you'd be turned off the article rapidly as it would be too detailed. - dharmabum 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition: that's funny, the direct link to that Britannica article doesn't show the full text, but if you go to it from this Google search, it does. - dharmabum 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing album titles as subheadings

I've been toying with the idea of removing the album title subheadings from the article, for a few reasons: I think it would flow better, it would really shorten the rather ungainly table of contents, and I'm not sure they're necessary since a picture of the album cover (with a link to the article about the album) appears next to each chunk talking about it. What do you think? You can take a peek at what it would look like in my sandbox. - dharmabum 20:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Even some details about the albums could be spared for the Pink Floyd discography and/or each albums article, to try and lighten our 54kB article. ;) — Rotring 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do it then... as for removing some details about the albums, all that really might need to go is specifics about the album, as opposed to how the music of a given album fits into their style, sound and evolution. Since one of the biggest criticisms on the FA review is not enough description of their sound, we need to be careful about removing anything along those lines. - dharmabum 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it's "specifics about the album" that I'm talking about, nothing more — like the extensive list of what each one of DSoTM's songs is about (that's a bit beyond describing their sound), or whose dog was Seamus. —Rotring 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about removing the stuff on DSoTM's songs, so you made up my mind. :) And the "Seamus" one is great, the lack of reference for that statement was bugging me anyway. - dharmabum 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My last edit

My edit summary got cut off because I accidentally hit Enter too soon; it was meant to go on to point out that Pigs on the Wing, at least, is also a love song. (I think Green is the Colour is too.) PurplePlatypus 09:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue of Floyd love songs is contentious, and I have no problem with hedging that "Pillow of Winds" is one of "few". The debate is around whether it's the only absolutely straight-up "love song", as opposed to the notes of desperation and sexual gratification that colour "Pigs on the Wing", or the one night stands of "Stay" and "Summer '69"... but I've always felt that "Green Is the Colour" is a love song as well, despite the stalker-like intentions that many in the Floyd fan community attribute to it.

On your last edit, though... do you really feel that "Fearless" has country overtones? My wording was ambiguous, but I meant that statement to sound more like this:

The mellow feeling of the next three albums is very present on "Fearless", and the album displays a country influence in the prominent slide guitar of "A Pillow of Winds"...

Rather than what I actually wrote:

The mellow feeling of the next three albums is very present on "Fearless", and it displays a country influence in the prominent slide guitar of "A Pillow of Winds"...

I realized that was probably the intention, but the twangy guitar at the beginning of Fearless practically begs for a "yee-haw!!!", at least to my ear. I always thought that song (along with Free Four) was the obvious place to attribute country influence to Floyd; by contrast it would never occur to me to laber A Pillow of Winds that way. (Also, why just that one, if slide guitar is your criterion? There's at least as much slide guitar on, say, High Hopes, or more relevantly in this context One of These Days, and I don't think I know anyone who would describe either of those songs as sounding country-ish.) PurplePlatypus 07:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's more the style of the slide guitar in "A Pillow of Winds", that really lap-steel country sound, almost a Hawaiian kind of vibe, while the slide in the other songs you mentioned is much more bluesy, the kind of stuff Duane Allman excelled at. I hadn't thought enough on the finer distinctions, but I think changing the phrase "slide guitar" in the article to "lap steel", or maybe "pedal steel", would get the country association across more clearly. Gilmour actually plays a pedal steel, which has distinct country associations, although the sound he generates when using it on songs like "One of These Days" is far more blues than country. So, to sum up, referring to "Fearless" as country sounding is fine by me, but the change to "pedal steel" would probably clarify what I'm talking about on "A Pillow of Winds" (and later, "Breathe" and even "The Great Gig in the Sky") a lot more. - dharmabum 08:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Fearless" has a bit of a country tinge, maybe, but I'm tempted to just attribute the country sound to the slide guitar of "Pillow of Winds"... thoughts? - dharmabum 10:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fan site quarrels

There seems to be a nasty quarrel over which fan sites should be listed and which should not. Well, a simple solution is to list none! I deleted the fan site list and I invite you to keep it off the article until you stop quarreling and removing links to rival sites. Thanks. David.Monniaux 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any quarrelling between rival sites in the last several months, just a minor one about WP:EL suitability of "Another Link on the Wall" and a large quarrel about a site administrator who was blocked indefinitely for linkspamming this and other articles with a clearly unsuitable site according to WP:EL. As most or all of the links removed are either long-established sources or top 20 Google hits, I'm restoring them. There's always going to be arguments about external links on any article about a subject with a large following, but removing established resources like the Echoes mailing list, which has been around for 20 years, doesn't improve the article. - dharmabum 23:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

With this latest debacle, I'm reversing my earlier position and agree. WP:EL makes it clear that fan sites are sometimes tolerated, but not necessary. It would be fine to have a few if it didn't lead to any disruption, but these silly revert wars about external links just take time away from actually making an encyclopedia and take up the talk page with a bunch of meaningless nonsense. I've re-removed all of the external links (except the official websites), and I regret not seeing your point to begin with. - dharmabum 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am contacting a admin, your out of control at the very least the page that held all the links should be present. IE a list of links to fansites like Another link in the WallOnanisland 23:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David; for a topic such as this where there are several good official websites, no fan sites are necessary. People looking for them can use google (as so often quoted, see WP:EL and WP:NOT). Including 10-20 of them, regardless of which other articles have that many, is excessive. See Talk:Six Sigma/Archive 1 (which includes an RFC comment) for precedent. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 00:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

links

Dharmabum420 and others seem to enjoy removing links from the article. I am not a webmaster or even know one. I found the site outside the wall on my space, and since then have found it to be quicker on posting news and tour info then any of the other sites. I think it deserves a link here with the others. I must admit, I messed up the link by missing a few rules to begin, but since then have fixed that. Dharmabum420 said it seemed self promotion, well I simply just copied the title of the page, it is not self promotion. Since then I have written what features the site holds, but it continues to be removed. Google stats do not legitimate how good a site is for info, and this is NOT a rule by Wikipedia, so stop treating it as one. Thank you, please keep the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onanisland (talk • contribs)

I would suggest the link be removed until a consensus can be reached here.

I'll assume that it's not self-promotion despite the earlier "greatest site ever!" type description, but regardless, I would personally argue against the inclusion of the site, for a variety of reasons:

1. Wikipedia is not a link repository, and guidlines suggest only one fan site for such an article, and we already have far more than that.
2. No Google hit within the first 100 links in a "pink floyd" search and no Alexa rating; while not a set policy on Wikipedia, such rankings are often used to determine a site's notability when trying to decide whether to include the site in an article already well-stocked with other, high-rated sites.
3. The only content on the site that is not easily available on far more popular sites is a selection of photos of people's tattoos. While mildly interesting, it's hard to argue that it increases the value of the Pink Floyd article itself, as few people who read the article will be searching it out for information on Pink Floyd tattoos.
4. Much content on the site is commerical, marketing T-shirts and the like. This is clear in the discography, which holds no information other than a simple list of the albums (available on Wikipedia itself anyway) with links to purchase them to an Amazon seller account.
5. The site in question is very low-quality compared to the rest of the resource links; confusing, messy and difficult to navigate, intrusive music with no way of turning it off, and it has major compatibility problems with Firefox 1.5 and Safari (perhaps others, that's what I've got to try).

That's my 2¢ on this particular site. - dharmabum 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll double dharm's 2¢ and even add in another penny to make it an even nickel. It's a very sub-par site and doesn't contribute anything to this article. Anger22 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I will disagree with both of you. while you claim only one fan site is appropriate, it clearly states "Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)" this fansite is very imformative and has more details on wanted details. For example, this site has details about a On an island live dvd with a direct link to saying David will record the rah shows for a dvd. Visit the other sites, none of them have this info and this is just one instance. You are wrong about it being the normal material. Also after paying attention to this site for sometime, it has continued to be the first in announcing tour dates for Rogers tour, and apparently has already secured a interview with one of Rogers bandmates. While you may think that the videos on the site are annoying, many fans love this. I am one of them, I cant think of another site where I can view much of the videos on this site. You say its difficult to navigate and I laugh at that, there is a simple naviagtion bar at the left hand side of each page, just like fleeting glimpses bar. Also every site has a discography, but very few have a videography, this alon makes this site better then most. So it has some comercial availability...so what? It still is a great source of info. Your google pink floyd rankings are a joke. 80 out of the first 100 are not updated and far subpar then this site. I wonder how many people search for pink floyd tattos, probably far more then you think, because I for one know of no other site that has this, and I have picked a tat from the site to get myself. This site deserves a link and I disagree with both of you

Also now that I think about it, show me another site that streams Davids mermaid gig, or has each of his promo videos for tracks of the new album? Not even DG.com has those avaialable anymore. Also how about the interview on the Roger waters tour page? Link the other fansite that has this. None do. This site was also the first that had Rogers complete touring band lineup. Did you view the timeline? Talk about a wealth of info, it has far more then this article has thats for sure. Look I just think this site deserves a link, but im not going to stay here and fight about it, its silly. One more thing, I never wrote greatest site ever. That must have been somone else, I did write the fastest growing pink floyd site, because thats what it says as the desciption when you open the page. Keep the link, save the whales. Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onanisland (talk • contribs)

Fanlistings are not the same as fan sites. The entry I'm referring to is WP:EL OAL#3: Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such.

The difficulties in navigation are due to its incompatibility with Firefox 1.5 in my case, putting floating images and videos over top of much of the text and occassionally the left-hand navigation bar. I didn't mean "greatest site ever" as what was literally written, but the general tone of the description, and I'm sure many people search for Pink Floyd tattoos, I just don't think many of them would expect to find such information in an encyclopedia article and would be searching Google. - dharmabum 01:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what firefox is all i know is it works fine for me, and I dont see why you shouldnt list 10-20 good fansites. This site still has better info then the major fansites in my opinion. Your just looking in the wrong place. The pink floyd news page is for pink floyd related news, everything that is Roger and David related is on their respected pages. and trust me he/she has more info then most of the fan sitesOnanisland 02:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Firefox is a popular Mozilla-based web browser, the favourite of most Mac users and an increasing number of Windows users. The reason why we shouldn't list 10-20 good fansites is because, once again, Wikipedia is not a link repository. A better question is why there should be any at all, as there's no policy indicating the article should. With the many hours myself and other editors have spent on making this one of the best articles on the Wikipedia compared to the amount of time we have to spend bickering with users whose only interest is including this or that poorly coded website, I'm beginning to agree with David.Monniaux and think maybe just having the official record label websites listed would be best for everyone. - dharmabum 08:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to contact a mediator. The editors of this page are overbearing. Check the other major band pages, the stones, the who, led zepplin etc etc, hell check them all. there are 15-20 external links and no-one has a problem with it because they are useful in their own ways. I had read forums accross the net that complained about you guys, and now I know why. Although I know you mean well, your taking it a little to far.Onanisland 16:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also this site is the only one listed that has a videography or Tattoo page which makes it different from the others, and I will be using that in my complaint in mediation. I truly believe this could be settled among us, before mediation takes place. Lets be reasonable, this site has useful info and you should realise that.Onanisland 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Stones and Zep are not among the 0.09% of articles on Wikipedia which are featured articles and held to a higher standard. If, on the other hand, you take a look at The Beatles, which is also featured, you'll note a very tight and small group of external links.

You are not paying attention to the process here. You've violated 3RR more than once, but I've given you the benefit of the doubt and not reported you for it. You just want to argue endlessly about this, instead of letting myself and Anger22 have our opinions and you have yours, display a little patience, and allow others to read the discussion and weigh in with their own opinions. I've been trying to assume good faith, but I'm rapidly losing my ability to believe you don't have some kind of personal interest in keeping this link. - dharmabum 20:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR As well as far as Im concerend. I do not need your benefit of the doubt, i know I am not the webmaster, infact I just posted on the sites forums and expect to get other people involved. The webmaster responded to me saying they couldnt get involved because its a rule. Check for yourself. I do have patience, but I have read through the complaints and it seems the editors who continue to do this on this page are far to aggresive. So believe what you like. Weather this is a featured site article or not, the same things should apply to popular band articles, the site deserves a link and Im fighting for it because so. I will also be patient, but after reading yourselfs and Anger22 history I conclude your overly aggresive on this subject. Also there are links currently that are no longer any use, outdated and some not even active anymore. My 2 cents and look forward to talking more reasonably.Onanisland 22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Onanisland for 24 hours for repeated blanking of this talk page. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 00:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Randy I am the webmaster of Outside The Wall. I have a little brother that I have had guardianship of since my Mother died of a heart attack two years ago. Yesterday he was suspened from school for fighting with another classmate. While he was home and before I left for work, I had asked him to search for Pink floyd directorys and try to submit links to my site. This turned out to be a bad idea on my part. I have two girls of my own and am trying to raise him and them correctly. It is a hard task. There is a big difference in our age and he is very inmature. Not to mention we lost another brother in Iraq in 2004, it has been a hard time for all of us. I found about about this because a moderator on my forum contacted and told me he had made a post and linked it here of which my moderator deleted. I have banned him from my computer and disabled his internet capabilitys on his until he can work off the money to pay for his own. I want to personaly apologise to the editors of this page for my bad judgment and for his behavior and assure you he will not be returning here. After reading over the posts he has made here, I cannot believe how much he has lied and what he has done. Needless to say he is troubled. The editors should consider putting back up the sponsered fan pages Like Fleeting Glimpse and Brain Damage, they have been great sources of Info since I have been on the net and I would hate to see them loose traffic because of my bad judgment. Its amazing how a simple task can turn into a huge mess when a 15 year old is at the wheel. Once again I am sorry and I hope you can all understand. Randy webmaster Outside The Wall

Your apology is appreciated, and I'm sorry to hear about your family's troubles. Nonetheless, your little brother - who doesn't represent the first time a conflict like this has grown out of control - has brought to the forefront a chronic problem with external fan site links in an article of this nature, and despite my affection for some of the external links like Brain Damage, I've rather swung to the side of a strict interpretation of WP:EL which indicates they're not necessary, since they can easily be found on Google anyway. We'll wait and see what the consensus is, but my 2¢ on the issue will be to keep the door closed to fan sites. - dharmabum 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fleeting glimpse and Brain Damage are Officialy sponsered by Pink floyd managment however and I think you should take that into consideration. Thank you for understanding the situation. He is back to school and still stripped from Internet access- Randy

I totally disagree with the decision to remove all the external links. For example Pink Floyd Archives, Brain Damage, Neptune Floyd and Echoes web FAQs are basic Floyd resources, some of them sources for pieces of the same Wiki article. So this appears as a childlike decision and, in my opinion, undermines Wiki democratic contributions and Floyd article credibility. mydarkglobe 4 April 2006

Note that sites which have actually been used as sources for the article are still in the footnotes. Also bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus seems to be to leave them out, although of course things may change. - dharmabum 19:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think at least those two fansites (Brain Damage & A Fleeting Glimpse) are worth keeping. They have a good reputation among the Floyd community and are well-known for their accurate, up-to-date information, that I daresay would be a good resource for anyone taking a look at this page to check out for further information. I have no real affiliation with either site, but thinking as someone who would be new to Pink Floyd and reading this page; well, I think both are acceptable inclusions. 71.209.142.159 00:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Dharmabum420, please read the policy before suggest it. I'm not talking about votes, polls and so on. I'm talking about the democratic freedom to contribute to the encyclopedia, without bureaucracy, stricts laws, useless leader and so on. So I ask you the courtesy to re-add the whole external links section, otherwise I'll make it in autonomy. Regards. mydarkglobe 5 April 2006

Well, that sounds a bit more like anarchy... but regardless, Wikipedia is neither. There are some strict laws and bureaucracy. At any rate, despite the fact that two administrators and several users have agreed with leaving fan sites out of the article altogether, 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. - dharmabum 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your last change should be a reasonable compromise. But please, in future, refresh your editing style with the Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy point. Regards, mydarkglobe 6 April 2006

Pink Floyd Gallery

I'm entirely new to editing Wikipedia, so I will leave the judgement up to you guys... I host a massive Pink Floyd image gallery, it currently has over 5700 images. It is at http://pinkfloyd.nosnam.com/gallery and if you would like to link to it in the article, you're more than welcome. I don't know if that would classify as a fansite or not.

Current Status of Pink Floyd

Everyone is entitled to thier own opinion on this one, but Pink Floyd has made it very clear that if they are ever to perform again, it would only be a one-off performance, and this may or may not happen. Also, as we know, Pink Floyd will almost certainly never make another album. With that said, I think saying (1965 - Present) is not entirely accurate, considering that they really are not together, and Gilmour has pretty much said that the band is finished, with the exception of a possible one-off. Led Zeppelin might also reunite in the future for a one-off performance, as this has happened in the past, but to say that they are together would be inaccurate. I can't say that there is much difference between the two. A band listed as Present (Ex: Fleetwood Mac, Deep Purple, Jethro Tull) should be a band that is still together. I understand why people want to list the dates as they are, since no official announcement has ever come from the management of Pink Floyd, or from the group as a whole that the band is indeed finished, but at the least I would recommened something like: 1965 - Present (Main Duration/Studio: 1965-1995). Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.226.207 (talk • contribs)

The fact is, management nor any member has stated that the band is over. Gilmour has said that he is probably finished with them, but Mason and Wright have not, and Mason has stated to the effect of 'no one person can end Pink Floyd'. A Mason-led Pink Floyd is difficult to imagine, but we really can't know what will happen, but since there's been no formal statement that they're over, it's not appropriate to change the article's dates since there's no reference we can find to justify it.

Note that the info box at the top of the article lists them as "inactive", and the kind of "Main Duration" caveat you're proposing is not in line with the general guidelines for music articles, and is unprecedented on the site. Note that your example of Led Zeppelin doesn't really apply; they formally disbanded back when Moon died, and reunited tours have been under the name "Page & Plant", not a formal revival of the band. - dharmabum 08:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I respectfully concede defeat on this issue. You are correct given that Gilmour and Mason (not sure on Wright) share the rights to Pink Floyd. Zeppelin did formally disband back in 1980 (one off's for Live Aid, Atlantic Aniversary & Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction.) Where Floyd has never called it a day, and I guess Gilmour can't end the band if Waters couldn't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.226.207 (talk • contribs)

Btw, Zep disbanded when Bonham died. Moon was in the Who. -albrozdude 21:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, whoops, it was very late when I posted that, and the whole Spinal Tap-style drummer confusion... I'm an idiot. - dharmabum 07:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i agree with that we shouldnt really say "present". It's misleading at this point to say that Pink Floyd are presently active, because they're just not. Although there hasnt been an official split announcement of any sort (apart from Gilmour), i dont think there will be. We did have an argument a while ago as to whether they're split, but this is rather about the 'active' status which we cant give them through 11-odd years of inactivity. If there is going to be a split announcement, what's the article going to say - Active 1965-2006? -- jeffthejiff 21:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of a problem here with general Wikipedia music guidelines. The infobox does not list them as "active", it lists them as "inactive"; the 1965-present means they haven't officially broken up (which is a definite based on their official press releases and so on), not that they are producing new material or touring. "Active" periods can be so intermittent as to cause problems across bands on the whole WP; nobody wants to see that that Floyd wasn't in the studio in 1976 or 1984 while band members worked on solo projects in a simple infobox, for example. The problem seems to be is that when you list a band's status as "active", it shows up in the infobox; when you list them as "inactive", it doesn't show anything. Maybe the problem is with the infobox rather than the specific article? I think that showing the band as being together from 1965-present with a field in the infobox showing "Inactive" would be a good comprimise. - dharmabum 10:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've brought the issue up on the talk page for the band infobox template to reinstate the "Status" field in the infobox, but there seems to be little interest. Since this is such a continually contentious issue on this article, I propose to subst the band infobox template with the code which you can view here, which lists the band as "Years: 1965-present" and "Status: Inactive" to try to clear up the confusion. While the code is somewhat more confusing to edit than the code in the original template, the need to edit the information with this change is absolutely minimized, and editing is still possible with a careful look at the code. Let me know if you think it's a suitable idea. - dharmabum 10:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your modifications, it does seem strange to call it "years active". I didnt notice the status field of the infobox before, its a lot better to show it. -- jeffthejiff 10:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor of the PF article but I'm tired of seeing it pop up in my VandalProof so often, just to have me check in and see that it's someone disagreeing with the years. That box mod looks great to me Dharm. I'd say just go ahead and sub it in their. Cheers! Anger22 11:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, will do - I'll include a bit of commented-out text to explain why and refer to this talk page discussion as well. - dharmabum 19:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of saying "years", I think it would be worded better if we said "Duration" User_Tkd73

Hey, who changed the box? I thought it looked perfect saying "Duration= 1965-Present", and then "Status=Indefinete Hiatus". I tried to change it back, but don't know how. I am in full agreement that we should not use "Years Active" because it is misleading for a group inactive for the last 11 years, execpt for Live 8. Tkd73

Current Image

Say, ya know, Syd is in the picture. I don't think he should be though because One: he is an EX-member. And Two: when Pink Floyd really shined was when Syd made no contributions. Thoughts? TommyBoy76 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

The article was lacking a fair-use picture when I started working on it for FAC, and I found that one and liked it precisely because Syd is in the picture, and it's a rare one with all 5 members. Syd is an ENORMOUS part of Pink Floyd's story, regardless of whether he's still wih them or not; an entire album was written about him, and Waters even dedicated their Live 8 appearance to him. Saying "Pink Floyd really shined" without him is only one opinion; there are many fans who were never interested in anything but the Barrett-era music. - dharmabum 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The logic for the suggestion for removal of the pic w/ Barret can apply to Waters as well since he's an ex-member too, and arguably (well, I don't know anyone who would argue this), Pink Floyd shined without him. -albrozdude 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my wife would argue this; her favourite album is The Division Bell. I can't say I agree, but the point is made, that whether you favour The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, The Wall or Momentary Lapse of Reason, saying a band shined with such-and-such a lineup is entirely a matter of opinion. - dharmabum 08:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I like your wife. My favorite album, too. I guess I didn't think of all that. I suppose more research on Mr. Barret would help. Well, cheers. TommyBoy76 19:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Is vs Are

This is Anglo/American language difference, collective nouns like teams and bands are plural in English and singular in American. Since Pink Floyd were a British band British English should be used. Bob Palin 01:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish someone British had read the FAC... myself and another editor spent ages combing through the article changing plural to singular since that was a complaint from a couple people during the FAC. I'll work on changing them all at the same time this weekend to keep the article consistent. - dharmabum 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Wikipedia article here, it's not a hard rule, and the singular form is acceptable in British English assuming usage is consistent. Is it really a big enough deal to justify the effort? I'll wait until we have some kind of consensus before I start changing. Personally, I'm indifferent as to which form is used (rather unsurprisingly for a Canadian), I just want consistency. - dharmabum 02:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You may notice that I didn't change the article back, I'm fairly indifferent myself though as a Brit I'm more comfortable with the plural version, consistency within an article is the most important thing I agree but not across articles (I'll resist changing all my soccer articles to US usage) What is a FAC? Bob Palin 04:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The singular version is an affront to God. I'm so glad that the Floyd are British. I've gone through the article and pluralised it. Hopefully I haven't missed anything. Chris Cunningham 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you do feel strongly about it, so thanks for taking the bull by the horns. Good job. - dharmabum 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?

What the hell is going on with this article? It appears that established editors are vandalizing it but I somehow doubt that is going on. I've protected the article so only admins can edit it until we can figure out what is happening.--Alabamaboy 01:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

According to User:Pepsidrinka, the edits are coming from throwaways. How does this work? And how can these throwaways mimic the accounts of established users?--Alabamaboy 01:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is undeletions that make it look like that. I was trying to remove the phone number from the history, but there was vandalism in between, so it kept getting deleted before I could fix it. So the history looks weird. Now the page is where it should be, with one exception, there is one reversion still in the deleted history that should be restored, although it was vandalism anyway. Prodego ^talk 01:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Same thing was happening to me when I tried to revert the vandalism. While I agree that FAs linked to the main page should usually not be protected, in this case I'll make an exception. Best,--Alabamaboy 01:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I might have inadverdently caused one of those acts of vandalism. I tried reverting the article but I when I saved it, the article had a huge banner saying "Wikipedia is Communism!" So I tried reverting again, doing a search for the word communism, couldn't find it, saved it, and got "Wikipedia is Communism!" again. Only I think someone else (or perhaps several people, since this was on the main page) was editing at the same time and their edits must have been able to override mine or something, because my name doesn't appear in the Edit History. On another note, perhaps the Communism Vandal is striking again? Mred64 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article showing up as a red link on the Main Page?

Because the main page links to the edit page. Attakmint 01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it linking to the edit page? And doesn't red mean the article doesn't exist?--68.121.163.42 01:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't, I deleted the page to remove some personal info, so the page didn't exist for a while. The links should work now, if they aren't working, do a hard refresh (Ctrl-F5 in IE Cnrl-Shift-R in Firefox) of both the article and the main page. Prodego ^talk 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ctrl-F5 for both pages didn't work, but I purged the Main Page, and it worked.

The sprotected box

Do we really need that big sprotect box there while it's featured on the main page? To me it makes this very nice article look much uglyer. Shanes 01:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't. :)—G.He 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It might help explain to anons why they can't edit. Prodego ^talk 02:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this shouldn't happen everyday, now should it? Are there any permanent solutions?—G.He 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There's merit in explaining this to those (very few, mind you) unregistrerd people who want to edit and not only read, I agree in that. But if an anon tries to edit he will be shown the MediaWiki:Protectedtext page which do explain that the page is protected. It doesn't explain the reason, but is explaining the reason really that important, more important than having a nice looking featured article to show all people who come here to read it today? The mediawiki protected-page text has a link to this talk-page, and we could always put the sprotect-box here to explain the details of the protection.

It's just that I think it's such a shame to let this article and the readers suffer by having that box there just because of some moronic vandals. Shanes 02:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Any other way?

Could we just block the users that vandelized the page rather than blocking use of the page? Tado 02:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that the people keep making new accounts. However, I wonder why they just don't block the IP... Someone should get a checkuser...—G.He 02:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Maybe shared IPs?—G.He 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on for a week now. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alkivar_phone_number_vandal. Cowman109^Talk 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I know...unfortunately.—G.He 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed an unfortunate problem we have to deal with constantly in Wikipedia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't stop wondering how much of a LOSER someone must be to keep vandalising entries. Elp gr 13:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I think it's better to protect the article for a day or two rather than fight a pointless edit war with morons vandalising it. Registered users can still edit the article as before. Valenciano 13:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Alabamaboy 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for about half an hour. You shouldn't protect the main page article for very long--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 13:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Note caption under the first photo... it's still vandalized 70.235.126.6 17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Category

I know some of the categories overlap a bit, but doesn't it seem like Pink Floyd should probably be in the category "Musical groups?" Just thought I'd mention it, as I don't really know how to do that sort of thing. 129.237.90.24 14:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Are --> is

It says in the first sentence that Pink Floyd are a band. Should this not be is, as a band is singular, not plural? Cowman109^Talk 19:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Only in America. In Britain the standard usage is are for plural groups. -- Boothman 19:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, alright then. As it's a British band it should remain "are" then, as from what I understand of policy concerning the grammar of pages involving people/places from Britain. Cowman109^Talk 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Are in this case sounds absurdly wrong to me. Since when did the rules of grammar break a leg, fall into the gutter, and get shot in the head? --Cyde Weys 00:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

British and American English are different, and as such there are different rules. It is Wiki style to use British English in Britain-related articles and American English in American ones. What matters most is consistency. Just as 'colour' may seem strange to Americans, the word 'teleprompter' may be completely unfamiliar to a Briton. Cowman109^Talk 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I talked to a real Brit and he says that both "is" and "are" are acceptable in this case in British English. Now in American English, "are" is clearly unacceptable. In the interest of harmonious editing the solution is to go with "is", as it's not going to leave a majority of the readership looking at it scratching their head at the first sentence, thinking it must be a mistake. Americans understand the colour/theatre thing and have gotten accusomed to it. But we cannot look past such a flagrant attack on grammar as using "are" to refer to a collective noun. What's next, "The herd are restless"? Bleagh --Cyde Weys 00:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What matters most is consistency. - That's my biggest concern as well, and I'm not too happy with the idea of leaving a single instance singular and the rest of the article in plural. As mentioned in the previous conversation just above this, I don't care either way which is used, as long as it's consistent. - dharmabum 00:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The singular is offensively illiterate, and marking such an offense as a minor edit after several contentious talk entries is ridiculous. *I* am a real Brit, and I consider myself more qualified than Cyde Weys's anecdote to say what is and is not acceptable in UK English. As with the famous Miami Dolphins quote, the plural is the only logical form, and US English is forced into awkward compromises by treating collectives as singulars (which is hardly unusual for a dialect which is ostensibly designed to simplify the awkwardness of the language and yet is even less consistent). Chris Cunningham 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're going with the singular form, you should see this diff link to show the other changes from singular to plural so they can be reverted. Cowman109^Talk 01:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, in Canada (where we speak what is mostly a compromise between US and UK English, favouring the former) both forms seem to be acceptable, and to me personally "are" looks a lot better in writing, though it must be admitted that "is" rolls off the tongue more naturally in conversation. PurplePlatypus 10:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a great deal of needless going back and forth on this. Both forms are at least acceptable for British English (comments like "offensively ridiculous" and "absurdly wrong", quoting in turn from folk on both sides, seem unhelpful to me). Why not go with whatever form was used by the first major contributor to the article and leave it be? Lots of other stuff to work on in our project, no? ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Were this an American article I'd grudgingly accept the Chicago Manual's recommendation, but it isn't, and it's simply grammatically wrong in UK English regardless of whether people are prepared to "accept" it. Furthermore, WP articles on UK bands are already heavily weighted towards the plural, so this isn't a new situation. Chris Cunningham 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am an American, and I believe the article should use "are", which is more correct in UK English. For Americans who aren't used to this, the meaning is still perfectly clear. Nobody's going to read the first sentence, feel something snap, and leave to bang their heads on the wall. They're going to be perfectly capable of extracting the full meaning of the article and they might learn something about UK grammar. I also believe people are getting way too upset about this; I agree with Lar on that point. "Offensively illiterate?" "Absurdly wrong?" A "flagrant attack on grammar?" Please. TomTheHand 14:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So do we maybe have a consensus? (I'd want to hear from Cyde I guess, he needs to be brought round, and Chris saying he's going with consensus rather than reiterating rightness might be goodness too) Again, many other articles on British bands/groups/organisations etc, use the plural form and the manual of style does say not to spend too many cycles on this... the problem seems to be, at least in part, how to gracefully handle editors new (at least to the article, if not to WP) turning up and making a lot of changes which then have to be undone or reverted, leading to wasted effort, and potentially disheartening frustration to the new editor. But that's a larger problem. Many of the WP:Beatles project articles have the same problem and there's no easy answer yet. Perhaps a warning box on the article itself saying it's written a certain way (in British English in this case)? But warning boxes are generally icky, being self referential... So I dunno. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a comment right next to the first usage in the article, although I had to put it back after Cyde removed it. The reason these articles are disproportionately affected is because they feature bands with extremely wide cross-Atlantic appeal.

Anyway, there *is* an easy solution: use UK English for UK articles. It appears that British editors are happy not to push this point on US articles. Chris Cunningham 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with TomTheHand, and also am an American. When reading the article, I noticed the use of the plural, and was favorably impressed. This increased my estimation of the authoritativeness of the article.

I also think that we should be sensitive to the sensibilities of the band here. Using "is" in this context has a definite American sound to it. And Pink Floyd has used American accents to symbolize brutal, unthinking destructiveness, as anyone who has listened to "Heart Beat, Pig Meat" from Zabriskie Point will know. This brings to mind three suggestions for revisions:

1. Mentioning of Pink Floyd's work for the Zabriskie Point soundtrack. Originally the Floyd was supposed to do the complete soundtrack and they recorded sufficient material, but ultimately Antonioni decided only to use three tracks they recorded, including a version of Watch that Axe Eugene called "Come In Number 51, Your Time Is Up", which marks the final climax of the film -- a canonical moment in sixties pop culture.
2. One can speak of "Pink Floyd" or of "the Floyd". One does not say simply "Floyd" without the definite article, as the article does at numerous points.
3. Since the cover of Ummagumma is mentioned in the "Images of Pink Floyd" section, it might also be worth mentioning that in one of the other images in the Ummagumma LP (I think it was the back), the band members are shown standing on what looks like a runway with their instruments arranged around them. The positioning of the instruments was intended to represent the shape of a B-52. (As some may recall, the Vietnam War was going on when the album was released.)

Hyperion 08:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1 - the Zabriskie Point soundtrack is mentioned in Pink Floyd discography - the main article only shows major studio releases briefly (note it doesn't include live versions or compilations either) in line with various music project guidelines. A very brief mention in the article somewhere in the Music from the Film More area wouldn't be a bad idea though. 2 - IMO, all three are perfectly acceptable, and all three are used by various band members at various times. 3 - Ummagumma is only mentioned specifically in context of the notable lack of images of the band on covers. Lots of other famous images, such as the ripple-less diver of WYWH or the pyramid sticker of DSotM isn't mentioned, either, and I think it's an area that could grow oversized easily if we start talking about specifics. That said, I wouldn't at all mind seeing a sub-article, something like Pink Floyd album artwork, that dealt with all the covers and incidental art in more detail. - dharmabum 20:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. This is an excellent article, by the way.

Re 2, I would suggest that just because a band member refers to the band as "Floyd", that does not mean that people who are not members of the band are entitled to refer to it in that way. That's my intuition, FWIW. Re 3: the Floyd's positioning their equipment in the form of a B-52 made an impression at the time, I believe. I have seen that aspect of Ummagumma's artwork mentioned in published articles on Pink Floyd. I think that not mentioning this would constitute a kind of censorship. It would be to assume that Pink Floyd are musicians and nothing more, whereas they clearly also have political views which they want to get across to their audience. I don't believe that a Wikipedia article should suppress this fact. - Hyperion 09:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Re 2, I can see your point there, but all three forms have so consistently been used interchangably by journalists, biographers, critics, etc. since about '69 it doesn't seem a big deal to me (while it would be if they had never formally dropped the definite article from their name, which they did on album covers and press releases).

Censorship isn't omission of information, it's supression of information. With such a long article, a large section really dealing with the statements made by their incidental album art, whether it's this one or the soullessness of the music industry expressed by the empty-suit in WYWH or whatever, is just too specialized. More importantly, any mention of such political statements would need a 100% rock-solid reference for it (which can often be difficult, as artists rarely choose to plainly state their symbolic intentions in interviews). Once again, that said, a sub-article on their album art, covers and otherwise, wouldn't be a bad idea - IMO, I think it's of definite interest, it's just to specialized for the main article itself. - dharmabum 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the dispute on whether or not we are using British or American was settled. If not, you can all have a talk about this on the village pump. Pseudoanonymous 00:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"One can speak of "Pink Floyd" or of "the Floyd". One does not say simply "Floyd" without the definite article, as the article does at numerous points."

Quite a lot of "ones" I know do exactly that, again I think it is a British thing (also occurs with Zeppelin but strangely not so much with Deep Purple) Bob Palin 19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is so, I stand corrected. I've spent considerable time in the UK however, and have never heard that usage. I don't think BTW that this usage not occurring for Deep Purple is strange. Purple is an abstract noun, whereas a Zeppelin is a concrete object. "The Led Zeppelin" sounds syntactically correct, whereas "The Deep Purple" sounds like some kind of mystical statement.

But to get back to the topic at hand: the point I and others before me have been making is that one should say Pink Floyd "are", not "is". If one accepts that, then refering to the band simply as "Floyd" is ruled out. "The Floyd are" sounds perfectly fine, whereas "Floyd are" sounds completely grammatically incorrect. - Hyperion 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Dick Parry / Atom Heart Mother

There is no saxophone on Atom Heart Mother, really... matter of fact, it's not even an orchestral instrument.

I have removed the superfluous reference to this. BotleySmith 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the statement for clarity, that the brass instrument experiment of AHM influenced DSotM and WYWH, simplified down to a single brass instrument (before, of course, being re-expanded to a full orchestra again by the time The Wall and The Final Cut came along). - dharmabum 20:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Although made of brass, saxes are actually woodwinds, not labrosones. Plus, Dick Parry used a completely different musical technique (jazz improvisation) from the written scores that the AHM players and the Floyd's later orchestras were working from. Also, considering that Rick played trombone onstage with the group in 1969, before they even recorded "Atom Heart Mother Suite", I think it's a mistake to draw this (as far as I know) unverified inference. I'll change my mind when someone produces a citation contradicting me. BotleySmith 20:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I get what you're saying now; I thought that you just thought that it was an incorrect statement about there being sax on AHM. I've just added a mention of Parry's sax being a big part of their sound in the era without any reference to AHM or brass instruments. - dharmabum 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Length

Okay, something really needs to be done about the length of this article. The Future Directions section alone is almost worthy of a whole article at the moment. The history section mixes album reviews with history: it's probably best to leave critical commentary to individual articles rather than having it all in here. And the reference music section is disproportionately large compared to that of most other bands. Chris Cunningham 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we at least add some more subsections in the meantime? Or sub-sub-sections, as the case may be? BotleySmith 17:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems a good idea to me. I'd support someone giving it some thought and adding level 3 subsections... go for it! That would then suggest where possible subarticles might be broken out. (I agree, history and Discography should be kept separate. The Beatles is not perfect in this regard but may offer some ideas...) ++Lar: t/c 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to review the featured article candidacy and the peer review before making any sweeping changes. For instance, the critical commentary and descriptions of their sound were added after specific complaints about a lack of it; there used to be far more sub-sub-sections, but it made the table of contents at the front of the article incredibly long and ugly. (I'm not sure what "the reference music section" refers to). - dharmabum 20:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pink Floyd/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

;Notice The following information was created as a Mainspace article: Pink Floyd/Comments. I created a redirect to Pink Floyd, and the editor has now added it to the talk page. This is for reference only. --OliverTwisted 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC) This is an excellent article which addresses the band's history and work admirably. There are, however, a few inclusions which are in some way controvertial and ought either to be highlighted as such or to be removed altogether. There appears to be heated debate in the discussion forum about these, so the best policy is probably to state the various possible interprations of the facts, point out that each is disputed, and then leave it to reader to decide. The inclusion of Bob Klose on the members list is one such inclusion: he was never, IIRC, in the band called [The] Pink Floyd but only in the earlier incarnation called The Pink Floyd Sound (aka The Tea Set, amongst other things). Unless the controversy is stated as above, this inclusion needs to be either verified and clearly explained in the text (and possibly in the list eg other early regular member: Bob Klose) or removed with an explanation that Pink Floyd is defined as not including that person. Possible soluton: Bob Klose is sometimes considered to be an ex-member of Pink Floyd; others reject this and simply refer to him as a member of Floyd's previous incarnations. Equating The Pink Floyd Sound with [The] Pink Floyd might be considered incorrect, unless the band is also equated with all the other incarnations, such as Sigma6 etc [cf Beatles/Silver Beetles/Quarrymen] Possible solution: Many would consider Pink Floyd to have started when Barrett changed the name to The Pink Floyd Sound; others would only consider it correct to say that Pink Floyd started from the time that the name Pink Floyd (sometimes rendered The Pink Floyd) was used exclusively. There is also debate about whether PF started at the point Barrett joined or at the point the name changed. Apart from disputed items, there are also several places where facts are presented but not verified eg "...according to band members..." (Which? When? Where?) There are one or two biased opinions interpolated, which make it sound more like a piece of critical journalism rather than unbiased fact-based encyclopedic writing, but these seem to be getting cleaned up. On the whole though the article fully deserves its accolade as one of the best articles on Wiki. Jubilee♫clipman 04:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)