Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikality alert!

"In 1990, Australian radio listeners voted it the best album to make love to" cites the source [1]. However, on that page, it says "Here's some interesting DSOTM trivia cribbed from Wikipedia" preceding the first quote. 130.126.216.127 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Release history

Country	Date	Label	Format
United States	March 17 1973	Harvest Records?
			Stereo LP ?
United Kingdom	March 24 1973	Capitol Records?
			Stereo LP ?
United States?	1979	Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab	Remastered Stereo LP ?
US, UK	November 24 1992	EMI, Columbia	Remastered Stereo CD
US?	1993	?	Remastered Stereo CD ?
US, UK?	2003	?	Remastered 5.1 CD
US, UK?	2003	?	Remastered Stereo LP

I think we should include a release history wikitable, but we need more infomation. 24.163.117.231 (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan Parsons doesn't belong in the opening sentence!

The opening sentence of this article, currently:

Engineered by Alan Parsons, The Dark Side of the Moon (titled in the 1993 CD release as Dark Side of the Moon) is a concept album by the British progressive rock band Pink Floyd.

He's notable, but he's not that notable. His engineering work is examined in detail later on in the article. He is quoted and generally receives the attention he deserves. But Alan Parsons is surely not the first thing people need to be told about this highly notable album, this legendary work of art.
--63.25.6.216 (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I could almost suspect parts of this article to be written by Alan Parsons himself or at least by his biggest fan. Of course he is important, but the section about the recording seems to be more about Parsons than the actual recording. Some of the sentences lacks NPOV. There isn't a word about Chris Thomas' contributions which was quite important as well. Floyd(Norway) (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pink Floyd articles tend to be plagued by pro-Gilmour and pro-Waters fans who want to edit-war over who did vocals on certain songs, and who played bass guitar; and then there is the occasional Parsons booster trying to name-drop him wherever possible. There are also guys who keep wanting to change chart and sales statistics, and even change the number of stars in the "professional reviews" to what they think the review should say, or used to say years ago, or change an "unfavourable" rating to "favourable" where the review doesn't actually say either. Maintaining PF articles to keep out the fluff is almost a project in itself. I think we should refer to it as (wait for it...) the Al*n P*rs*ns Project --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Musique Concrète

Why is it those with the least musical talent are the most pretentious? I can just see Richard, Nick, Dave, and Roger sitting around over a cuppa and saying 'hey you know lads we should use some musique concrète on our next revolver'. Somebody probably warned them that 25 years later there would be a twit who described the music as such but it seems they didn't believe him. How unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.41.42 (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Trolling is unfortunate too, and your post doesn't make much sense. You're saying that they deliberately intended to do something as musique concrète, and then you're saying they didn't. All you're really saying is you're not impressed by an album that's one of the biggest sellers of all time. So what? I never cared for the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack. Happy now?

Speaking of trolling, I also removed the other comment you inserted where you personally attacked others who post on this page.

Also: Please add new sections to the bottom of the page, not the top, and remember to sign your entries. If SineBot signs it for you, do not go back in and remove the signature, unless it's to put in the signature you should have the first time. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, although I'm not personally too keen on the phrase "Musique Concrete", Nick Mason does actually use it in his own book.NH78.147.146.102 (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Insanity vs. mental illness

An editor changed "insanity" to "mental illness" (as a theme of the album) and gave this reason: "due to insanity reflecting a legal standard rather than a state of mind". While I agree with the need for this edit, I also believe this is a the result of a change in medical terminology that has probably come about since the album was made. (And if that's true, then the legal profession needs to catch up; why would they use a term that is no longer meaningful in the medical profession?) Since the word "sane" is used in the lyrics, I think it's appropriate to mention insanity as a theme. Outdated words can't always be updated with a modern equivalent; the context becomes altered. I have changed this edit (in 2 places) to read: "insanity (mental illness)" to show the word as used on the album, followed by the modern equivalent phrase. Hopefully this will be regarded as an acceptable edit. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the change you made to my edit, as it represents an effective clarification of concept while remaining faithful to the tone of the album --insane just sounds better. --Mordicus Egg (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed "insanity" before I read this post - apologies all around. I went back and changed it to "mental illness (or 'insanity')". Insanity is too narrow as a theme; it suggests only the extreme end of the mental illness spectrum. (And is not synonymous with "mental illness", as the parenthetical reference suggests, which is why I put "insanity" in quotes.)

Yes we see "sane" in the lyrics to "Brain Damage" - exactly once, but also "lunatic and "loonies", and of course the album opens with - "I’ve been mad for fucking years, absolutely years, been over the edge for yonks, ...", and "I’ve always been mad; I know I’ve been mad..." - references to a mental state that need not be construed as "insanity". On the The Making of The Dark Side of the Moon DVD (most highly recommended for Floyd fans), Waters discusses how "sanity" is a relative term, i.e. relative to a frame of reference. The inspiration for the lines, "The lunatic is on the grass" and "Got to keep the loonies on the path", is a patch of grass by a university or something, with a sign "Keep Off the Grass", and the absurdity of maintaining a patch grass but not letting anybody "enjoy it", "run on it or kick a ball about". So of course if you're off "the path" and "on the grass", you must be a "lunatic", and we've "got to keep the loonies on the path".

Btw, re the above comments - "insanity" (or in some cases "diminished capacity") is retained as a legal defense, and as such carries a legal definition that is very narrow; a person diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia can still be found "competent to stand trial". Although in some cases appearing to use the same language, the legal and medical professions are entirely disparate, and therefore construe common words quite differently.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the last piece of your comment, pertaining to the narrowness of the legal term "insane" -- this was the reason that I initially changed the piece to read "mental illness" rather than "insanity", though I was not able to adiquately address the legal aspects. I like the compromise that A Knight Who Says Ni came up with, as it's clear that mental illness is what is being discussed, though the term "insanity" works well in conveying tone of the persona. Mordicus Egg (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there have been quite a few edits to this section in the last few days! Some comments: I think insanity/mental illness should be the first item in the list of themes, since I believe it was intended to be the most dominant theme. Other themes such as greed and old age are mentioned in one or two songs apiece, but madness (or whatever we want to call it) keeps recurring. The album's title is intended to represent the state of madness.

I was also going to question the edit that says this album does not have the "instrumental excursions" that previous Pink Floyd albums had. Since all songs on the album lead into each other without breaks, I look at the whole work as a 2-part suite, and there are certainly long instrumental sections (songs) between the parts with lyrics; 3 major instrumentals in fact, and somewhat long instrumental breaks within "Money" and "Us and Them". Maybe this edit is trying to say something I'm not understanding, but it just looks inaccurate to me, and should be removed if it can't be clarified. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The bit about the lack of "extended instrumental excursions" refers to David Fricke's comments about the band, particularly their live shows, after Barrett left the band ("The Floyd went glacial..." "They spread out."), what Gilmour called excessive "noodling" on the guitar (which he had grown tired of) and recorded material such as "Echoes" from Meddle - an entire album side.

Dark Side... contains disparate compositions that meld into a singular piece, and there are no 20 min. instrumentals. Additionally, the material was written as a set of songs, not one long song. (Waters' track list for the album reads: "... time song ... lunatic song ... money song ...".)

Re "insanity/mental illness" as "the first item in the list of themes": It's not necessary to list the themes in order of their dominance. Good practice in composition includes constructing sentences that have a smooth and, dare I say, euphonious flow. (Imagine, "Nash, Young, Stills and Crosby" - sounds rather "clunky".) There are many underlying themes, but I think "the human experience" sums up the album as a whole rather well, and the list of underlying themes is ordered to lend a smooth flow to the piece. (Waters says its about the realization of "empathy", or words to that effect.)

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

PS- I know my references are a mess; will try to clean them up later. Thanks for your patience.

The Dark Side of the Moon as "an engineering reference standard"?!

Under "Recording", in the fourth paragraph we read that "To this day, audiophiles use The Dark Side of the Moon as an engineering reference standard to test the fidelity of audio equipment.[citation needed]..." (Emphasis added.) YOU BET a citation is needed!!

First of all, I suspect that very few who consider themselves "audiophiles" are trained engineers, or even qualified technicians. (I was, and I suppose still am, an "audiophile", in fact, a "Certified Audio Consultant" - whether that 1979 certification is still valid I have no idea.) Audiophiles generally make subjective judgments about the quality of equipment and recordings, and the accuracy or "fidelity" produced by systems and components. Some have so-called "golden ears"; most I suspect do not. In fact, the judgments of audiophiles are often fodder for good-natured jokes and taunts from professional audio people, but they (we) also take their comments seriously to the extent that others might rely too heavily on there often flawed appraisals.

Perhaps more importantly, sophisticated test equipment is required to make sound "engineering" judgments; very few outside the pro audio community have access to such gear. This alone renders the statement erroneous, at least as to the inclusion of "engineering" in the statement. Without suitable test equipment, we're all subject to imaginary differences in sound quality or fidelity.

As far as I know, in the professional community there is no single audio recording that serves as "an engineering reference standard". Therefore, the statement should be removed from the article unless a clear reference can not only be cited, but quoted.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the sound and special effects on this album may have inspired a movement toward making albums that use the same techniques? If other producers and engineers tried to copy what was done on this album, couldn't we say that they "referenced" (i.e. studied) this album? I suspect that's what the comment was intended to say, and was not supposed to conform to any special definitions within the jargon of engineers. If it clashes with technical language, a slight rewording could probably correct the problem. You don't have to be a technician to note that certain albums like Sgt. Pepper and Dark Side did something that hadn't been done before, which was obvious to most listeners, not just those with degrees and special equipment, and they made an impact on the direction of future album productions. I'm fairly sure the article wasn't trying to say anything more than that. Rewording is always preferable to deleting content. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to delete it without discussion. But serving as an inspiration or influence to other engineers and producers is not what the statement says. It says "audiophiles use The Dark Side of the Moon as an engineering reference standard to test the fidelity of audio equipment. (Emphasis added.) With the highest respect, I must say that that is not at all the same as the interpretation you suggest. And I agree that it should be re-worded if the statement's intent is as you suggest, but that seems unlikely given the very specific language employed. And of course I agree that there have been many recorded works that have inspired others and even instigated revolutions in composition, performance and engineering, and they have nothing to do with the fidelity rendered by the equipment or techniques employed. I would argue that most revolutions in the content of recorded works has had nothing to do with the fidelity of the material. The Beatles recorded their early works (at least up to 1965, I believe, maybe '66) on a 3-track machine - bouncing tracks then mixing it all down to mono - even though 8-tracks were already available in the US. (EMI was a little behind the times.) In any case, I'm not going to fret over it (audioheads can make up their own minds), even though in my opinion it is significantly misleading. (We knucklehead engineering types often go a bit too far in "sweating the details".)

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - Re "imaginary differences" in audio fidelity, there's an interesting interview with Ken Scott, one of Britain's top engineers (The Beatles, David Bowie, Supertramp, The Tubes, etc.), in the Oct. 2004 issue of MIX magazine where he discusses this very topic. It's available at http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_ken_scott/ under "So if you were to look at your sessions, what would you say are some of your greatest Spinal Tap moments?"

More to the point, in the context of the text making the "engineering reference standard" claim, it's apparent that the author is writing about the technical, not the creative aspects of the recording of the album.

"To this day, audiophiles use The Dark Side of the Moon as an engineering reference standard to test the fidelity of audio equipment.[citation needed], despite the fact that it was originally mixed from second-generation tape with Dolby noise reduction. This is attributed to Parsons' superior engineering skills, and to the amount of time he put into the album." (Emphasis added.)

Who are these audiophiles? Are there more than two? If someone can come up with a reference, then we can say, "According to so and so..." Otherwise it should be redacted to delete this dubious claim, while maintaining a bit about the superior quality of the recording, especially for it's time. (I have no problem with that.)

Btw, the article already says it's "one of the greatest and most influential albums of all time", which addresses your point, although it would be nice if that bit were expanded, maybe with specific examples.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You've made a very good case (and I guess I replied without really reading and considering the bit in question). Now that I look at it again, it appears to be an example of Parsons fandom. In a previous discussion, I jokingly suggested we should create a project to remove peacock terms regarding Alan Parsons, and we should call it the Alan Parsons Project. I agree with its removal, if you're asking for approval to remove it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny how it reads, "despite the fact that it was originally mixed from [I suspect it's supposed to say "mastered from"] second-generation tape with Dolby noise reduction." If it was "mixed from second generation", the stereo pre-master (before the mastering engineer got a hold of it) would be 3rd generation. That mastering process adds another gen., so that's 4 if you're keeping score - and it rhymes! The cutting lathe or the cassette master adds another gen. (They didn't duped cassettes from the master; that would have worn it out. It stays in the vault.) Second generation is as good as it has ever been in analog. (I've never seen session tapes or acetate disks available in the record stores.) And it's even further erroneous because Waters' "Money" loop and Parson's loop of clock sounds were transferred to the 24-track, so bits the pre-master were already 3rd gen.

Dolby SR is the standard noise reduction tool in pro analog today, as many engineers are going back to their trusty old Studer 24-tracks - some never left, young engineers are just catching on. (Analog tape adds warmth and natural compression you can't get in digital without a sophisticated emulating algorhythm.) I think Dolby SR is the same NR that was used back then, unless it was Dolby "A". (Dolby B was introduced in the seventies for cassette NR).

Blah, blah, blah... Yawn... :)

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"...I've never seen ... acetate discs available in the record stores..." – what about direct to disc albums? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Before magnetic recording, cutting a disc (or cylinder) was the recording process - that disc was your 1st generation. Then you used that to make a mold (or cast, I forget), which would technically be your 2nd generation, to stamp out copies to sell to the public. Those copies were 3rd generation. So if you bought a D-to-D record, you were getting a 3rd generation recording (unless you bought the original acetate. Note the article says, "... consumers would be willing to pay more for high quality pressings". (Emphasis added.) - copies of copies, 3rd gen.

Btw, before everyone had tape recorders, is was routine to cut an acetate from the tape of a recording session for a demo to shop around to studio executives, promoters or whoever, but those would still be 2nd generation - 3rd if a multi-track tape was mixed down to mono tape, then that used to cut the acetate.

So I guess I'll remove the troubling "engineering standard" bit. I was gonna wait until I could find a reference citing the quality of the recording and mixing and who should get the credit. (Parsons does deserve a lot of credit; his contribution was written up in the audiohead mags of the time. But they brought in an outside engineer to help toward the end; everybody was involved in the mixing sessions and it had been wearing them down. That's all on The Making of... DVD.)

Now I guess I'm off to find a shrubber...

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody here remember Chris Thomas?

All this hyperbole about Alan Parsons and all we see of Chris Thomas' contribution is his album credit: "Mixing Supervisor". According to the interviews on The Making of ... DVD, toward the end of the mixing sessions the band had become frustrated by disagreements about the final mix, and Thomas was brought in to help resolve some of these issues. One of his principal contributions was to give the album a bigger sound by increasing the amount reverb and/or compression on individual tracks. Heavy compression is a staple in the production of rock records, and although the amount of compression on Dark Side is generally less than what was typical of rock records of the time (which was a lot less than what it is today), it does give many songs on the album a bigger or fatter (and more commercial) sound than that of the band's previous work. The only disagreement between Parsons and Thomas mentioned on the DVD is with respect to the amount of compression on the tracks, which may suggest that Thomas made a significant contribution to the commercial success of the album. How to incorporate this into the article eludes me for the present.

Btw, compression on much of today's commercial music (pop, rock, rap, techno, whatever...) has gone way over the top, artists apparently competing for the loudest record. (And largely a result of the availability of digital DIY technology.) This has been the biggest source of frustration among mastering engineers for many years now, since once a track is compressed and added to the mix, it's impossible to restore the dynamics without going back to the original tracks and redoing the mix. If the tracks were originally recorded with excessive compression, which is often the case, then you're really screwed.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to bump up his prominence in the article a little, go ahead.

About compression, I fully agree with your concerns. In the 1970s I used to get bugged at how different music sounded on FM radio vs. on record, because radio adds heavy compression to everything, to reduce changes in volume. Probably for several reasons: records are cut at different volumes, and the DJ can't be bothered adjusting for each; they don't want the music to appear to vanish for listeners with the volume turned down very low; and maybe they don't want sudden peaks that might startle those listening while driving.

On the other hand, in the UK in the 1960s especially, there are some occasions where the use of compression has been praised as revolutionary, in its use by Joe Meek (The Tornados) and the TV theme music of Ron Grainer and Edwin Astley. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Radio and TV require "broadcast limiters" to avoid overmodulation which can distort the RF signal and produce spurious signals. So in that case it's a necessity. (A limiter is just a compressor that applies very hard compression.) But they also use compression ahead of the limiter just to make the overall sound louder; and as you said, to compensate for the differences in source levels. Quiet passages in some material would be nearly inaudible in a car or noisy room if compression wasn't applied. But by the late 70's many stations in the US went way overboard, I think just to compete against others by broadcasting an overall louder signal. The worst of it is the heavy comp that is applied to commercials and the DJ's voice. I stopped listening to radio many years ago because I got tired having to constantly lower the volume every time the DJ or a commercial came on. At least on TV I can hit the mute button and wait for the program to resume. But I pretty much stopped watching TV a couple years ago because of all the commercial interruptions. (I had my cable disconnected - I still get one channel - and watch DVDs almost exclusively now. If it's any good it'll be out on DVD before too long. A lot of stuff is now available online shortly after broadcast, and the quality is getting better.)

Re the positive aspects of compression in music production; there's no doubt it was a revolutionary step, and was especially important when everything had to be reproduced on vinyl. A major part of the mastering engineer's job used to be getting the levels just right such that the groove noise would be effectively masked on soft passages and the limits of the stylus and cartridge not exceeding on loud passages. In the US it was Teletronix's LA-2A "leveling amplifier" - a tube (valve) compressor introduced in the mid 60's - that initially set the standard for compression in recording and mixing. The Urei 1176 Field Effect Transistor (FET) compressor/limiter, introduced a little later, would enjoy similar popularity and both are still highly prized for the more natural sound they produce compared to many modern units. (And have been reissued by Universal Audio, which bought out the manufacturers of both units by the late 60's.) Modern comps like DBX use voltage controlled amplifiers (VCAs), whereas the vintage units mentioned above use photo-optical devices.

I guess it was Joe Meek products that set the standard in the UK. I think I first read about them 10 or 12 years ago. They've gotten excellent reviews in the US audio technology mags for their facility in the creative use of compression, i.e. using it as a tool to generate a particular sound or effect.

But anyway, verbose discussions of the pros and cons of audio compression aside, the "recording" section of The Dark Side ... really needs work. I want to do a re-write and post it here for comment. It'll probably end up being longer by at least half, but at least it will be more accurate and objective. I'm a big fan of Parsons' work in the 70s, but it's not like invented everything from the wheel to sliced bread.

OMG, I just followed your links to "Joe Meek" and "The Tornados" - "Telstar", man! I loved it when I was a kid, still do. I've had it on my hard drive since 2000.

That was weird; I just previewed this and I got your message re Rick Wright. You welcome; no problemo. Btw, Wiki redirects you to "Eddie Van Halen" if you dare to enter his correct name. Sigh...

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wish you were here on the Dark side of the Rainbow

The comment before "Wizard of Oz" is correct : "Wish you were here" was the next album, and if you overlay this album onto the movie after Dark side of the Moon, then the synchronicity, apophenia, or coincidences start all over again. If folk find it hard to believe the Dark Side of the moon theory - Even if Dorothy says ". .behind the Moon . ." just before she sings "Somewhere over the Rainbow" (rainbow = spectrum off of album cover), do you think that anyone would believe that if you overlay "Wish you were here", (the follow up album) after Dark Side of the Moon - then the whole thing starts again (cue the sign in the enchanted forest "I'd turn back if I WERE YOU")and even when the witch is rubbing her crystal ball we hear ". .shine on you crazy diamond . .", I know this is as spot-on, or tenuous a link as any other claim made about links between the band and the movie

Watch the film in it's original form or listen to the album : they are both phenomenal works of art of the 20th Century, if you are disappointed then you will probably never be pleased. The least best option is to watch the pictures from the film and listen to the music as you do so : but the 2 albums played simultaneously over the film - curiouser and curiouser. Green Adzem (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Long track list chart

A few months ago, we decided that the article should only show track timings from the original LP edition. As is to be expected, we are still getting editors coming and and changing it to whichever CD edition they happen to own. This is a persistent problem in all articles for older albums, but it happens frequently here. Before this decision, we had a chart in the article showing timings from all known editions. I agree this chart should be kept out of the article, but I am pasting it onto the talk page, because I think it should be here for reference. (And I think it's kind of handy for my own reference!) We can use it to check up whenever someone changes the timings again, and maybe also point to this section to explain to the editor why the change was reverted.

#	Track title	Credited to	Vocals	Track times for individual releases
				Original release 1973 LP	Mobile Fidelity Ultradisc CD	Original CD and 1994 remaster	Shine On box set and 1993 rerelease	2003 SACD
1	"Speak to Me"	Nick Mason	instrumental	1:30	1:13	1:10	1:13	1:08
2	"Breathe" (or "Breathe in the Air")1	David Gilmour Roger Waters Rick Wright	David Gilmour	2:43	2:46	2:48	2:47	2:49
3	"On the Run"	David Gilmour Roger Waters	instrumental	3:30	3:34	3:35	3:33	3:50
4	"Time" (containing "Breathe (Reprise)")	David Gilmour Roger Waters Rick Wright Nick Mason	David Gilmour (verse) Rick Wright (chorus)	6:53	7:05	7:04	7:07	6:50
5	"The Great Gig in the Sky"	Rick Wright Clare Torry²	Clare Torry	4:15	4:48	4:47	4:44	4:44
6	"Money"	Roger Waters	David Gilmour	6:30	6:23	6:22	6:32	6:23
7	"Us and Them"	Rick Wright Roger Waters	David Gilmour Rick Wright (harmony vocal)	7:34	7:50	7:50	7:41	7:50
8	"Any Colour You Like"	David Gilmour Rick Wright Nick Mason	instrumental	3:24	3:25	3:25	3:25	3:26
9	"Brain Damage"	Roger Waters	Roger Waters David Gilmour (harmony vocal)	3:50	3:50	3:50	3:51	3:47
10	"Eclipse"	Roger Waters	Roger Waters Rick Wright (harmony vocal) David Gilmour (harmony vocal)	1:45	2:05	2:01	2:04	2:11

(post above added by A Knight Who Says Ni – but I forgot to sign it)

I personally despise that table - totally unnecessary in my opinion. Ummagumma23 (talk)

Somebody tried to add the vocals back to the chart today; I'm guessing they didn't see this discussion because the "data" doesn't match the old chart, and lacks citations, so I reverted and left a note on the editor's talk page (an anon IP). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Track list: first 2 tracks

I think there should be a small comment at the bottom stating that some CD releases merge the 1st two tracks into one. --Aksnitd (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this worth mentioning? I would consider that an error, as the original LP and all previous CD editions banded the first 2 separately, and I doubt the group made a decision to change it for future CD editions. Also, as stated in the section above, we want to emphasize the original track list timings, so later variations on it (especially where non-standard an possibly accidental) may not be noteworthy. (But if you still think a note should be added, I'm not completely against it!) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A mess

Poor grammar, completely unsourced material, referencing that does not appear to comply with wp:reliable, badly formatted references; this article is a mess. Inbetween other work I shall therefore be improving it, and this normally begins with the removal of anything that cannot be proven with a reliable source - for this reason, I have put {{fact}} on the end of any paragraph. This is useful to editors to keep track of what part of a paragraph is referenced, and what is not.

If sleeve notes give reference to certain information, then include it - do not just delete requests for citations. A reader should not have to own the album to be able to discover from where that information comes from. I have the album, so will have a look for pertinent information. As things stand, this article is a disgrace. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting; my reaction to the tags you put in, is they were not helpful. Information taken direction from album credits does not generally require an outside source, and I really don't know what could be done when you challenged the statement that Waters was credited for writing the lyrics for a number of albums in a row. Songwriting credits are nearly always shown on album credits, so it should not a mystery as to where that came from. HexaChord did a great job of looking at some of your requests for citations, and inserting them, and he was right to remove the others. Simply deleting a lot of things you don't like isn't going to improve the article, and if you do so without discussing it on this page, your changes are likely to be reverted. Please consider working with us, not trying to take over the article and trashing its current state, which is what your tone seems to suggest.

Sorry if that sounds a little harsh; as I'm writing this I'm looking at what you have changed so far, and it doesn't look bad (aside from the re-insertion of tags, but I'll wait to see what you do to improve fix those sections before worrying about it). The only comment I have so far is that this album is often considered the definitive example of a concept album, so it's appropriate that this phrase be in the opening sentence. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is the case that it is considered as such (and I believe it is - I'm a huge fan), then that information should be in the body of the article. Anything in the lead should also be in the body, as per wp:lead - "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec):It is a disgrace that Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd is not much alive at the moment, yes. Therefore all related articles are not cared for much. But that's about the state of all music related projects on Wikipedia that I've seen.

I don't think it's a good idea to put a fact-tag at the end of each paragraph. If there's certain statements that need citations, put it directly there. As you might have seen, I've included several refs recently, but also removed some. I don't think we need citations for Waters writing all lyrics between Dark Side and Final Cut - that's pretty common and included to the sleeve notes of the respective albums. Also, do we need the "I've been mad..." quote to be cited? Well, if so, that's mentioned in about every book about Floyd - just make your pick.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your input, and if you want to question certain statements do it. I'd be happy to find and add some more refs.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Any changes I make - anything - will be referenced from reliable sources. I don't believe in adding things willy-nilly, and I certainly don't use anything that would definitely fail at FAC. That's where I'm headed with this - such an important album should not be languishing at C-class.Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't cite every single half sentence. This is an article and not a doctoral theses. There still is the possibilty to include the most important sources in a bibliography section to avoid stupid overciting of the very same key sources (e.g. Schaffner or maybe Mason) over and over. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't do that, and I wouldn't expect to see that - but if ever this article is to get past GA, inline citations will be required. There's nothing wrong with a further reading section, but if any information in the article comes uniquely from those sources, it'll need to be correctly cited. Also, if a paragraph is cited, but certain explicit information in that paragraph does not appear in that source - then it can't be included in an FA. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FFS stop deleting pertinent info that is perfectly acceptable yet uncited, there's a good chance it will never be put back. And what's with the bollocks about mixing citation templates? There's nothing in WP:CITE about that. One should use the correct template for the appropriate citation. Why oh why do people get bees in their bonnets about and article then proceed to hack it apart with no consensus. --WebHamster 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Find me a single TFA that has ever mixed citation templates. It isn't allowed, it makes the reference section harder to read. I've been through FAC several times and this has always been a requirement. If information is 'perfectly acceptable', then state where it came from. Don't expect the reader to have intimate knowledge, because they often won't. If you can't back information up with a reliable source, it shouldn't be there. Sorry if you don't agree.Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE says: "Each article should use the same method throughout—if an article already has some citations, an editor should adopt the method already in use or seek consensus before changing it." But also: "Add your source even if you are unsure of how to properly format the citation—provide enough information to identify the source, and others will improve the formatting." About consensus: Interesting how fast three people can run to protect an article. We should get this baby at least to B now - if not A... ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting it to G or FA is fine and dandy, but if important info is lost in the process then we haven't done our jobs. There's too much of this "feather in the cap" nonsense about getting an article looking nice when there's a cost in information. For now don't delete anything, just tag it for citation as it's pretty much a safe bet that whatever gets nuked won't end up back in there. Substance over style please folks, it's one thing having citations looking neat and quite another to take a cleaver to the article. Damn I hate it when one person wants to to go at it without discussing it first, and "discussing it" is not the same as notifying people that they are going to do it. As a PF fan this article is quite important to me and I'd far prefer it being informative than being pretty. --WebHamster 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Important information is irrelevant unless it is correctly referenced. I'll not delete anything from the article body other than poor grammar or incorrect facts (demonstrable by reliable sources I come across). I'm sorry you feel I should have discussed this more but I am not making edits that would conflict with any Wikipedia rules. A great deal of this article seems to be verging on wp:or. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a perfect example of deletion frenzy. Removing something from the lede that isn't in the body. That's crazy. You don't delete the info from the lede, you add it into the body. I'm sorry, but that sort of attitude pisses me off royally and is totally unnecessary. --WebHamster 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So add it. If you have the source to hand, add it, and reference it. Otherwise it doesn't deserve inclusion. Work on the article, get it up to standard, and then summarise it in the lead - doing it the other way around just makes life more difficult. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to get it to GA first, and then FA. I'd appreciate help on this, but the article is very far off either, and needs weeks, if not months of work. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the sources that are available, it only needs two or three guys and a weekend. I'm here, and I have all important books, DVDs etc. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That'd be great. What template do you prefer to use for book citations? My preference is the {{Harvnb|last name|year|page}} style of template. Page numbers are important - while the article is C-class now, it won't always be. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a perfect example of priorities being in the wrong place. Information first and pretty citations second please folks. --WebHamster 00:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with priorities. It has everything to do with making less work. Fine, add anything you like - but if, while adding it, you do not correctly cite that information, you'll either have to revisit the source and do it later, or watch as another editor deletes the (unreferenced) material.Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what should be done when adding new info, I'm talking about what should be done with existing info. So far you seem to have cut a swathe through the article of info you deemed to be irrelevant. This isn't the way it should be done, especially given the amount of revisions you are creating. Important info WILL be lost when you do that and that is totally unnecessary. If you don't like anything just tag is and bring it up here. I don't have any objections to the basis of what you are doing, just the way you are doing it and to a degree for the reasons you are doing it. OR is not an excuse to delete something. It's only OR if there's no accompanying ref. Don't delete, tag. It may be more work, but it keeps the data safer and in any case who said anything about things should be done purely to make less work? As I said though, ease off on the deletions and put back some of the stuff you've taken out then tag it (unless of course it's obviously something that will never be ref'ed). Pretty for pretty's sake is NOT the way to go and is endemic in WP in a way that is akin to pupils learning for exams and not learning for learning's sake. Inform first, get a ribbon second I say, but then I really don't give a toss about article ribbons anyway. --WebHamster 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The only 'huge chunks' I have deleted have been from the lead (and weren't huge chunks anyway), and they're right there in the history revisions. I've deleted large quotes from the references section - they're in the links, and don't really serve much purpose in the references section. As for making less work - sorry, but I don't intend to create work for myself. When I add things to an article, it gets referenced - or it doesn't get added. "Inform first, get a ribbon second" - that's all very well but unless you can demonstrate the veracity of any information in the article, then it shouldn't be there. Any students interested in DSOM would not find this article very useful, since they wouldn't be able to follow the information to it's sources.

I hope you don't think I'm being confrontational because I'm not. Don't make the mistake of thinking that deleted information will stay deleted - if it's notable it'll no doubt appear, but this time it will be referenced, as it should have been in the first place. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]Putting it bluntly I have no concern as to whether you want less work or not, you decided to do this of your own volition, you weren't coerced into it. Once again you refer to adding information requires refs, well yes, of course it does, but as I've explained that is NOT what I'm referring to. You perfectly demonstrated my point above "if it's notable it'll no doubt appear. Whoopee do! So what you are saying is that you are fine deleting something that may be useful to someone and you're guessing that it MAY be added back. That's just plain ridiculous when the info is already there and may just need a ref. That makes no rational sense. If it's already there and tagged there's a far better chance of the ref arriving than the deleted info AND a ref arriving after its been deleted.

At the moment I'm not even attempting to touch the article as you are the WP equivalent of a Dyson on LSD at the moment and I'm not going to bother until you slow down, the dust clears and I can see what you've left behind you. --WebHamster 01:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a fairly addictive personality and tend to get 'stuck in' to articles, until I'm reasonably happy with their condition. I've done some fairly significant expansions of several articles over the last few months. ;) Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added information I removed from the lead into the body of the article, and inserted cite requests. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

citation #43 does not discuss anything about the "rule change" that we report caused it to fall off the chart. The site linked only discusses the album artwork.121.55.196.124 (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Final Cut

The article states that on the sleeve notes Roger Waters is credited with all the lyrics for this album, but my UK vinyl copy has no such information. Does anyone have a different copy that does state this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Final Cut is basically a Waters album with a token PF on the front. In the CD booklet the only thing that refers to it is "a requiem for the post war dream by roger waters" (sic), so I'd go out on a limb and suggest that in the absence of any other writing credits Waters wrote everything. It's also quite telling the line below the above that says "performed by pink floyd" (sic). --WebHamster 13:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this was my understanding - if anyone questions it we can point them to this talk page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but how childish can we get? If you really want, I can give you several other sources for the fact that Waters wrote all lyrics and more and more of the music on those five albums. Just take a look at the available secondary literature if you still think it's OR... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't include me in that appraisal. I am not being childish, and I resent the comment. Any time you feel like criticising someone for making sure all facts in an article are correctly referenced, just head over to WP:FAC and present a candidate article that you've edited. Tell the reviewers how you "don't need to reference everything". Go on, feel free, it won't cost you anything - except perhaps, your pride. How anyone can criticise a person for improving an article's referencing is beyond me. If you have a problem with me, I'd rather you discussed it on my talk page, not here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do what you want, I'm tired of splitting hairs at this darn project. Skip this whole "Waters wrote the lyrics" if you feel better then. You may put 593 little blue numbers in this article, all referring to the very same sources over and over again. You also could just create a bibliography section including the books by Schaffner, Mabbett, Mason and MacDonald that the article is mainly based on and only cite additional sources. Devil-may-care... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with HC on this one, it's 1 album and already there are 60 references, talk about overkill. As for WP:FAC, haven't they read WP:CITE#Over-referencing? This is starting to look obsessive rather than required. And I do wish you'd give the reader a higher priority than getting another FAC barnstar on your user-page. Currently your editing spree is bordering on the farcical and I do wish you wouldn't make so many autonomous decisions with regard to changes. If you don't slow down I'm going to be doing some rather large-step reversions. --WebHamster 18:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

60 references - that would be a mere 18 more than there were when I started editing - before I removed the huge quotes from that section, and most of those original 42 (excluding the deadlinks) were from questionable sources - and I can't see all of those 42 (for example, [2]) remaining past GAC - some of them look like random Google search results. You should look at Adore (album), Be Here Now (album), Pinkerton (album), Loveless (album), there aren't exactly a shortage of references there. One of the most successful albums in the history of the world, I think you'd struggle to find many more notable albums than DSOM.

It really is bizarre that you claim my motivations are not aimed at the reader. As a reader, how can I trust this article? Much of its content may be entirely correct, but how would I know since much of what is written is unreferenced, and therefore uncheckable? I do a fair bit of local history, and the very best history books are intensively referenced. I think there's an element of pride at stake here (hence the veiled threat), which is ironic since I cannot find your name even in the top 100 of revisions to the article. It leaves me slightly bemused, but if you don't want to contribute it won't be a problem for me. I'm quite happy editing the poor grammar, removing any inaccuracies, highlighting the lack of references, and restructuring the article so that it makes sense to a layman. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You've made it quite clear that your motivation is FAC and it's pretty clear that you are obsessing over the references. If you want to do that then go for it. My only objection is how you've hacked away relevant and interesting information without discussing it with anyone. You haven't discussed any of your edits and there are literally dozens of revisions since you started on your quest for glory. How the hell is anyone going to find and retrieve the pruned info in that lot? And yes it's been an awful long time since I did anything on this article, if ever. Which is actually neither here nor there. I've been around WP for a long time and have a lot of edits under my belt so I have a pretty good idea when an article is being hacked apart for the wrong reasons. And no I'm not saying you are doing it deliberately or to purpose damage it, but by the same token your obsession of getting a gold star is the wrong reason, IMHO, for doing what you are doing. And yes I most definitely don't think the average reader is your priority. And yes I think 60 references for an article this size is overkill. A reference is only required when some info is likely to be challenged but you seem intent on every single factoid having one. Not only is the average not interested you're also making it harder for them to read the article and to give them less information to read. If this were a science document then yes facts need backing up because of the type of person reading it ie academics who are used to citations etc, but who the hell cares when reading about DSotM? I for one am more interested in learning about the album, it's details and stories about it. I really could care less that the syntax is 100% or that this quote is exactly word for word. You don't need a ref at the end of every bloody sentence, especially whene there are fewer sentences now than when you started! --WebHamster 22:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Its quite clear to me now that you've not taken in a single thing which I have said, and you don't appear to be at all interested in the very clear and concise rules that Wikipedia places upon articles.

• My only objection is how you've hacked away relevant and interesting information without discussing it with anyone. - I wasn't aware I needed your permission, especially for a C-class article in such poor condition
• your quest for glory. - I couldn't care less about glory. I do care about standards. Clearly, you do not.
• is being hacked apart for the wrong reasons - your definition of wrong is incorrect. What is wrong is to support an almost completely unreliable article, and to object to any attempt to make it satisfy wp:reliable or wp:nor. You may be happy to see an article full of unreliable facts, I am not. If you want that kind of article, go and write a blog. Meanwhile, those of use who understand the meaning of the word 'encyclopaedia' will continue to disagree with you.
• but by the same token your obsession of getting a gold star is the wrong reason, IMHO, for doing what you are doing. - Utter claptrap. FA's are the finest articles that Wikipedia has to offer. I'd put money on you having very little (if any) support for your objections to my edits amongst established editors, particularly at GAC or FAC.
• And yes I most definitely don't think the average reader is your priority. - Then you're sadly deluded. I couldn't care less about my online persona, what I care about are reliable informative articles. Its a shame you don't, as you've repeatedly implied.
• And yes I think 60 references for an article this size is overkill. - such a shame for you that the reviewers at FAC disagree. Why don't you nominate some of those articles I have highlighted to WP:FAR, on the basis that they have too many references? Let me know what happens if you do, I'd be interested to read the comments.
• you seem intent on every single factoid having one. - Wrong.
• Not only is the average not interested you're also making it harder for them to read the article and to give them less information to read. - Who are you to dictate what the reader should be interested in? Harder to read the article, do you speak the English language? Can you not see the many instances of poor grammar? Unreferenced information is unreliable information, and has no place in an encyclopaedia.
• If this were a science document then yes facts need backing up because of the type of person reading it ie academics who are used to citations etc, but who the hell cares when reading about DSotM? I do. So do a great many other people, including academics. Just because you're not interested doesn't mean to say nobody else is. Besides which, unreferenced text is against wikipedia policy.
• for one am more interested in learning about the album, it's details and stories about it. I really could care less that the syntax is 100% or that this quote is exactly word for word. Good for you. Personally I don't enjoy the thought of reading something that may be factually incorrect, or worse, a lie. And again, your opinion of grammar is irrelevant - it is wikipedia policy that matters. Go read the manual of style if you disagree.
• You don't need a ref at the end of every bloody sentence, especially whene there are fewer sentences now than when you started! There isn't a ref at the end of every 'bloody' sentence. Read the history I have added to the start of the article, you'll find it surprisingly light on references. You do however need a reference to back up anything in the article at FAC, that's where I want to see the article, that's where I will one day see the article, and if you don't like it - tough. Take it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee if you like. The deleted text is readily available in the history since I summarise major edits as a matter of habit. While you're at it, read the rules on lead sections. Its a shame you couldn't put as much effort into improving the article as you have writing here. I guess that belies your intentions with this article, which is, and I'm sorry to stoop to ad hominem, akin to a child throwing its toys from the pram. The worst part is, the child in this case doesn't own the toys. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember right, all three of us offered you help, independent from each other, but you went on an ego trip. I still think the article would profit more if we'd work together, but as mentioned before I'm really tired of fighting over each sentence or word. Go for your darn star alone then. BTW: I don't understand your strategy, to nominate the main article for degradation, and build here massive sink holes - but anyway, your choice... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd love help - that's what Wikipedia is about. The problem here is that there is a profound disagreement over what constitutes a good article. I posit that a good article is everything listed at WP:FACR, but you guys don't agree. The main sticking point though is your objections to my deletion of material. You don't seem to understand that I won't just be deleting unreferenced material, I'll be adding a hell of a lot more to build a worthwhile read based on reliable sources. I'm sorry you don't appreciate the effort that goes into making a good article, but I see no sense in having information in the lead which is not also in the article, information that to all intents and purposes is original research.

Putting up the Pink Floyd article for WP:FAR is not part of a strategy; it is simply that I read it, and noticed how it falls way below today's required standards for FA. It isn't the first time I've done this, and it won't be the last. Some people seem to be taking all of this very personally; I only care about the articles, not personal feelings. You can ask about my motives over at [[WP:GM] if you like, where I've gone well out of my way to contribute to a wide range of articles, including reviewing the odd one or two at GAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuck it then, you do your own thing. Like HC I'm no longer going to bother. You've got it into your head that all you want is a nice pat on the head over at FAC, regardless of your objections to the contrary. You think you're making a better article, I don't but I'm fucked if I'm going to try to dig my way through your countless revisions. If I want the facts then I'll just go to the books on my shelf and forego your WP self-abuse. As for your comment about "factually correct", well it may come as a shock that WP doesn't strive to be factually correct, or even tell the truth. As for your analogy for me throwing the toys from the pram, well I've had to 'cos there's fuck all room in the pram for them since you crawled into it. But as I said, go for it, get your FAC pat on the head, feel proud of yourself. I no longer care and getting into further discussion on the matter is obviously pointless as you have no intention of discussing before you do anything, you merely want to defend you actions afterwards when it's too much trouble for us to put back in what you've taken out. have fun, I hope you enjoy yourself. --WebHamster 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If I want the facts then I'll just go to the books on my shelf. - perhaps you should have done that to begin with, you'd have had a much better article. I have to conclude that you're not interested in improving this article and I see no reason why I should continue this discussion. When you are able to speak with a little more maturity, you may find me more responsive.

I find it interesting that you have twice had your account blocked for reversion. I'm not surprised though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping out of this argument (after my initial post in response to your earliest edits), but for the record, I'm in complete agreement with those who are opposed to the way Parrot has gone about editing this article. You have been avoiding responding a couple of the main criticisms: you are making far too many small consecutive edits (good heavens, your edits take up most of the 2 most recent history pages, all covering a couple days work; that's just not right!), and you have not shown any willingness to work with those who have been watching and maintaining this article regularly for some time. What you should have done, is copy the article to a user sub-page, made your changes there, and then when you thought it's in a state to copy back to the live artilce, you should have let us know what you had done, and invited us to look it over and make suggestions. I'll bet that if you had done that, all of this discussion would have been unnecessary, and your changes may have been accepted with open arms -- especially if you had been able to get rid of the excessive "citation needed" nonsense by that point, which I'm hoping is what you're going to clean up by the time you're done. You keep telling us how you can ignore all the advice you are being given, because you're such a pro at this. But the troublesome way you've approached this editing job demonstrates you can't possibly be all that experienced, to have not gone through this before in other articles. Hope you'll take this advice to heart.

As for this article, here is my prediction on what will happen: you probably won't get the FA status you're seeking, and you will eventually leave it to others to fix the problems you will leave behind, including restoring relevant content that should never have been deleted -- although, as I've suggested, maybe you really will do a lot of cleaning up. (We will also need to review before and after pictures to catch any nonsense edits made by others, which were not caught because of all the consecutive editing you've done.) This does not mean that your contributions will be for nothing. You are right in that many of the changes you are making, will ultimately make this a better article. But then, some of the new references added by other editors in response to your earliest edits, will also be enduring improvements. If you had just gone about all this the right way, your contributions would have been respected. As it is, everyone is upset with you, and rightly so. I'm hoping I can make you see that merely changing your working method a little (and changing your attitude, not so little) can turn your reputation around 180 degrees; something you should try to understand for your next article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything I can add to what I've already written. Being subjected to ad hominem attacks, criticisms of changes made in line with Wikipedia policy, etc. I couldn't really care less about online reputation as long as people can see that I've improved an article. If this had been a B-class or GA, I could understand the objections, but the number of unreliable references, the contentious claims that are entirely unreferenced, the amount of original research.... The number of edits is rather irrelevant, the compare function can reduce 25 edits to 1 with 3 mouse clicks. The same function can over any number of edits show you exactly what text has been removed, but also what text has been added.

Feel free to judge me if you like; I don't do that. I judge the article, and that is all that should matter. I'm not interested in praise or anything else other than producing a good, reliable and informative article that can stand up to the closest scrutiny - this after all, is an encyclopaedia. I have some material on the way that will help. By the way, I have the sheet music for this album but I'm not sure if that would be any use, other than as a discussion of what key or timeframe each song is in. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Length of time in the Billboard 200

There are conflicting sources for this information. This says 736 weeks, but this refutes that claim. Which is correct? The Povey material does at least offer an explanation behind its thinking. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I should add that the Harris book says 724 weeks, one week more than the Povey reference Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to do this now, so that you won't have to sit here and wait for what could take a few weeks, as it looks like whoever is working on this has been extensively working on the article. I am quickfailing this article. I see quite a handful of [citation needed] statements, and a lead should ONLY be a summary of the article below it. The lead should not have citations in it. It should have none whatsoever. I am going to quickfail this, so that whoever is working on this article can keep working on it, and re-nominate it at a later date. Good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a point for future interest, there is no rule that the lead should be citation free, and there are very clear cases where citations are required in the lead. I don't agree with your quickfail decision, but I will leave it to the nominator as to whether this is now taken to WP:GAR or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead should only be a summary of the content in the article. Unless it's a quote, there really shouldn't be any citations in the lead. For example, the release date could instead be cited in the infobox. And I'm sure the second citation is mentioned in the article below, so it is not needed in the lead either. And the third citation is of a statement that is a general summary of the critical reception section, and also doesn't need a citation. The lead should only be a summary of the article below, no new information should be in there. Also, I am pretty sure any article with [citation needed] tags would be quickfailed by most other reviewers. Basically, the article is close to GA level, but still needs some touching up. If you need more clarification, I will go over this in more detail later, as I have to go now. See you all. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you for clarification, I was trying to clarify things for you. Have you read this part of the MoS? Information in the lead is not exempt from the requirement to be cited. I have no opinion on whether the information cited in the lead needs to be cited or not, I am simply making the point that there is no rule that citations should not appear in the lead. Quite the reverse in fact.

A "large number" of {{fact}} tags might indeed be a cause for a quickfail, but I quote: "If it is apparent from the article edit history and talk page that the nominator has already put extensive work into the article and is genuinely trying to improve its quality, then generally a quick-fail is inappropriate even if obvious issues still exist."[3] I count nine, but none of them seem difficult to deal with during a hold period. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on providing sources for the {{fact}} tags but I'm surprised you quickfailed the article - I'd say that nearly all of it is well referenced - most of the {{fact}} tags are old content from other editors that I have left in in lieu of arguments on the article's talk page. Rock and a hard place. I'm just about the only editor (bar Malleus) working on it right now, so I nominated it when I did as there is a large backlog and a GA review would no doubt have highlighted other issues I needed to be aware of, saving valuable time. To quickfail on 3) is, I think, a little trigger-happy - although, I suppose, justified. I'll delete the content I feel will not be possible to reference. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

OK, I was incorrect in quickfailing the article, then. Feel free to re-nominate it. Have a good one, and good luck! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you were technically incorrect, the criteria lets you quickfail for those tags, but I'm not too bothered, it nudged me to delete material I was unlikely to find a source for anyway :) I'm struggling to find sources for Aus, France and Germany album sales... Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs citations

I can't find online or print sources for these entries, so am moving them here pending the GA review. Hopefully once found they can be cited and returned into the main body of the article.

Albums

Year	Chart	Position	Comment	Source(s)
1973	Australian Kent Music Report	2	Initial album release
2003	Billboard Pop Catalog (North America)	1	30th Anniversary hybrid SACD edition

Selected album sales

Country	Certification	Sales	Last certification date	Comment	Source(s)
Australia	11x Platinum	770,000+
France	1x Diamond	1,250,000+
Germany	2x Platinum	400,000+	1993
United States Soundscan	8x Platinum	8,360,000+	since 1991