Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Recent edits

With regard to this diff, I do not think that 'superseventies' is a source that could be considered reliable, especially not in a Featured article. I think the onus is on the editor who added this source to demonstrate its reliability, rather than leaving the problem to other editors.

My second issue is with the comment "In fact, the band incidentally took a cut in its royalty rate so that the posters could be included without raising the cost of the record." Firstly because the prose is poor, but secondly and more importantly because it offers no context. Why would they take such a cut? More information is needed. Parrot of Doom 00:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources makes it perfectly clear that as claims become more and more out of the ordinary, the sources need to be more and more reliable. It also states that fan-run websites are not reliable. http://www.superseventies.com/intro.html begins off:

Welcome to the Web's #1 fan-run Seventies music & culture destination!

It speaks for itself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me all this fuss about these recent edits lies on the fact that the Superseventies is a fan-bese website, unfortunately not the info itself. I agree that one reference isn't enough, or even reliable, specially coming from a fan-base site, so I looked for another: Digit. But these were not enough, so I looked a little bit further: One Giant Step for Pink Floyd, which comes from another fanbase website, but also corroborates the info on the other. But then again I looked for the source from where the info was taken and found out that there was really an issue by the Washington Post, author Richard Harrington, dated Apr 28, 1993: The Washington Post, from where the info(s) was taken.

You could also help providing other references to the things that you consider unreliable, instead of "pushing the button backwards". Talking is easy, doing, not quite so.

The question: "Why would they take such a cut?" Answer: Because Capitol Records in US was "too cheap". Obviously, not a present to the fans, as stated by Thorgerson, but simply marketing strategy. The Dark Side of the Moon was one of the first albums to draw attention to the importance of packaging as a marketing tool. Other albums followed, like Brain Salad Surgery, No Earthly Connection, In Through The Out Door... (vide: Look at Yourself, '71)

By the time people your age were crawling on all fours, I was already listening to the album. So it really doesn't matter to me if the info is there or not. The important is that this information won't be disclosed to the readers and like this, we all lose. We are the editors, so the onus falls upon us all. Krenakarore (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You are making some badly thought out assumptions. You have no idea how old the editors are so your rather patronising comments are very much out of place. Personally I bought the album when it first came out and enjoyed it whilst remaining perpendicular to the floor. Your other misassumption is that the onus is on us all to maintain all information added to the article. Sorry but the onus is on the editor adding the info to make sure that it is correctly referenced and nobody else. If other editors wish to do so then that's okay but they have no responsibility to do so. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If its so easy to find reliable sources for the information you want to add, then why aren't you doing it? Fan-based websites are largely useless. They could each have copied the information from other, unreliable sources—ever heard of Chinese whispers? I spent weeks deleting edits like the above, and months more working with other editors getting this to FA. I'm not going to allow it to slip back to the uncited and unreliable state it once was in. Parrot of Doom 12:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't particularly appreciate comments like this: "Talking is easy, doing, not quite so." - take a look at the revision history and see who the primary contributor to this article is. See who bought all the source material, and then started working on most of the other Floyd studio albums. If you still think that I'm a talker, rather than a doer, you're quite deluded. Parrot of Doom 13:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If the Washington Post isn't a reliable source, so then I don't know really what it is that you consider reliable. What I meant is: if you think the reference isn't reliable, try to reference the statement instead of deleting it. Responsible yes, for your own omission in referencing what other editors add to it. That applies to the release date of the album: March 17, 1973, in the US and March 24 in the UK, official dates from Capitol Records, but that again it's up to you if you want to update the info on your article or not. Primary contributor does not necessarily mean "owner".

"If its so easy to find reliable sources for the information you want to add, then why aren't you doing it?" R: I don't want to and, I have already. Krenakarore (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So add the text and cite it to the Washington Post then. Not difficult is it? The onus is on the person adding information to ensure that it is correctly cited. If its so easy, do it, don't be lazy and expect other people to spend time on such things. The release dates have been discussed, at length, on these talk pages. Oh and drop the claims of ownership please. Ownership, and a determination not to let this article be spoiled by uncited additions, unreliable sources, and poor prose, are mutually exclusive. Parrot of Doom

No, not difficult at all pal. That's why you'll do it yourself, because it's easy. As for the release dates, only Wikipedia cites 10th of March. That's quite unique, not to say odd, isn't it ? All the very best that life can offer you Tom. Krenakarore (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you can't be bothered. I guess the world will have to wait for someone who is. As for only Wikipedia suggesting those release dates, I suggest you read Povey (2005) p175, or any of the other sources—including Mason's book—none of which seem to agree on the dates, but all of which disagree with your comment. Parrot of Doom 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the question of the release date has been raised again, I would like to point out that both US release dates mentioned, Saturday, March 10 and Saturday, March 17, are incorrect. The Dark Side of the Moon entered the Billboard Top LP's & Tape chart for the week ending March 17, 1973 (see [1]). An album entering that chart would have been released at least two weeks prior to that date. You see, the Billboard album chart reflects sales between Monday and Sunday of any given week. The magazine reaches newsstands on Friday and is dated based on the end of its publication week which is the following Saturday. Thus, the March 17, 1973 issue of Billboard would have been on newsstands Friday, March 9, 1973 and the survey period for that week's chart would have been Monday, February 26 through Sunday, March 4, 1973. It is just not possible for an album released on March 10 or later to be included in the chart dated March 17 because it had to be in stores during the survey week ending on March 4 in order to appear on that chart.

This advertisement on the front page of the February 24, 1973 issue of Billboard announced "album available March 1." Since this was published prior to release it can't be said with certainty that the album was in fact released on that date but it is squarely in the middle of the appropriate tracking week for the March 17 chart so I see no reason to doubt it. Piriczki (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

...which is quite clearly WP:OR. It may be true, I don't know, but verifiability counts for more than truth here. Parrot of Doom 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Dark Side of Dorothy

The spookiest moment for me was sudden audio effects kicking in when the Bad Witch enters the scene with a bicycle. Perhaps it could be sourced and included in the article. --94.70.87.157 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean Dark Side of the Rainbow? Yeah, um, this is an encyclopedia entry, so I don't think it should include someones opinion on the "spookiest moment".70.168.11.55 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Factual error

Dark Side of the Moon was PF's eighth studio album, not its sixth. The album list omits the soundtrack of the film More -- which was a major album, providing several of PF's live show numbers -- and the soundtrack of the film The Valley. I don't offhand have release dates etc, but I recall that More predated Atom Heart Mother, and The Valley came between Meddle and D S of the M. I'm totally new to discussion pages and don't have time to learn all the procedures or do a proper edit, but can someone who's more engaged take this up, please? 58.167.35.137 (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia film soundtracks are not considered studio albums. I don't have the relevant link to hand, but that's pretty much the way it is. Parrot of Doom 23:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but can someone tell me why not? That seems pretty arbitrary, given the amount of (studio) work that goes into a soundtrack album of the kind we're talking about. 58.167.35.137 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Us and Them

For some time I've watched a steady stream of editors change "ageing" to "aging" in this article, and an equally steady stream revert that change, commenting, "British English". Well, yes, this article is indeed written in British English; and I support (not as a Brit, which I happen to be, but as a member of the global WP community) the principle that, per WP:ENGVAR, we are not about to see "favorite" and suchlike here. As a member of that same global community, however, I also support the principle that we should seek opportunities for commonality, and should therefore refrain from divisive spelling/word choices—such as insisting on "ageing" when "aging" is perfectly acceptable in British English! Both spellings are acceptable in British English—look it up in a British dictionary, any who doubt this, and while you're at it, note that the same is true of most word-endings "-ize" and "-ise"—noting, moreover, that "aging" and "-ize" are given by some references as the primary British spelling. My two edits today to this effect, each of which made all of this abundantly clear in the edit summary, were reverted, by two different editors, both of whom demonstrated complete disregard for the point being made, even citing "British English" in their reverting edit summaries! Surely this insistence on choosing the incompatible one of the two British spellings is taking "Us and Them" too far. "Speak to Me", please, in a reasoned response that transcends today's two reverting edit summaries. Reflect on the desirability of seeking commonality where possible, in this global resource which we're all working on together. PL290 (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to "aging." If both are acceptable in British-English, it should be used per opportunities for commonality. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, see Cambridge Disctionary that describes it as "mainly US present participle". As such I've changed it back to the accepted, and more usual, British spelling. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

PL290 is right ! WP:OWN. Krenakarore (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're completely out of order. Parrot of Doom 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Krenaarore, I'll see your OWN and raise you a WP:AGF. You should read it. Nev1 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Krenakarore's comment stems from my removal of his edit. He seems to enjoy flouncing around and slagging me (and Fred the Oyster) off. Parrot of Doom 10:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The OED gives "Ageing" as the first example, "aging" as second example. I disregard your point because I don't agree with it, and I'm not about to accept the mixture of British and US English in a British article. BTW, many British words were, originally, "-ize", and are no longer. Commonality goes both ways, all English-speaking Americans should understand this article fully. If some of them don't understand what "Ageing" means, I suggest they get a better education. Parrot of Doom 21:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ageing is probably not the best word to use in this instance anyway. The word "ageing" doesn't just mean getting older, it means "to become old", as in elderly. The song on the album related to getting older is "Time" which is more about fading youth or approaching middle age rather than becoming elderly. Another word or phrase that more accurately describes the song's theme might be helpful. Piriczki (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "aging" then the US variant of the British "ageing", and do the two words mean the same thing? Or does the former mean "growing old" in both languages, and the latter "being old" only in Britain? Parrot of Doom 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Aging and ageing are not two words, just two different spellings, the former US and the latter UK. It obviously makes sense to stick with the UK spelling for such a very British band as Pink Floyd and their angst-laden lyrics influenced so strongly by the British weather. However, replacement with something like "ennui" or "growing older" would be better, partly because they wrote this at a young age and partly because "ageing" is really about the "process of ageing" and has a slightly scientific connotation - the Floyd were clever young fellows but I doubt that's what they had in mind. They were racking their tortured psyches over moving into their early 30s. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Where two spellings exist in British English, different bodies such as Chambers or Cambridge dictionary take their own stance on what is "preferable" or primary spelling--but to put this in context, will you find "favorite" in the Cambridge dictionary as the "mainly US" spelling of a British word? Of course not. It simply does not exist in British English. The dictionary findings cited above confirm the point I set out to make. As to the article, I see we've tried various expressions and ended up with "the passage of time"--a far more comprehensive expression for Dark Side. Even "Time" covers both "shorter of breath, one day closer to death" and "ticking away, the moments that make up a dull day". Well done on that. PL290 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"Passage of time" seems rather anaemic and neutralised to me. A bit like saying I Claudius is "about strains in family life". What was wrong with ennui? PF were in full-blown despairing angst mode when they penned this album, they weren't engaging in theoretical social work textbook writing. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyrically, the album has those clear themes the article lists, time being one of them. Ennui may have been what the band were feeling when they made the album, but it doesn't have the required connotation of time. Maybe ennui needs working in somewhere else. PL290 (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Why last edit undone?

The entry for "concept album" is linked to the word "concept" in the second sentence, then the tenses are confused, and saying the concept lacks the instrumental blah blah isn't quite right -- it's the album. I corrected the sloppiness of the sentence but was reverted. Am outta here, but someone should redo my change.Modefier (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This raises a difficult question; is the album a concept, or is the concept an album? I know I'm confused. Your point about tense is well-taken, but I would ask, did it build, or is it [still] building? Another difficult question. I will seek advice. Parrot of Doom 21:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the "sloppiness" was in your change. The album is not building (present tense) on anything, it was built on ... (past tense). --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference between "is (still) building" (continuous present) and "builds" -- especially with reference to works of art it is conventional to talk in the present.Modefier (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Chart run

Last week Billboard magazine changed its rules for inclusion on the Billboard 200 to allow catalog albums on the chart for the first time since 1991. This week, The Dark Side of the Moon re-entered the chart at #189 and it is possible the album will intermittentley appear on this chart going forward. Already an editor has changed the long-standing record of 741 weeks to 742. I think a description of the original 741 week chart run from 1973 to 1988 should remain in the article along with a separate mention of the updated total which may have to be changed frequently. The original chart run was a significant and much discussed phenomenon in itself while the additional weeks now are a product of a rule change that probably wouldn't have been enacted if not for the death of Michael Jackson. The record of 742+ weeks should be mentioned but the number is somewhat meaningless since it could have been significantly diiferent if Billboard had decided to change its rules at some other point over the past 18 years. The continued sales of the album decades after its release is certainly noteworthy, but that has already been demonstrated by other charts and sales figures. Piriczki (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I find this information: "The "total weeks" longevity record (by a large margin) is held by Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, which has a cumulative total of over 1,600 chart weeks (more than 31 years)." ..in the Top Pop Catalog Album Charts! [2] -- 217.252.180.61 (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

....which is unsourced. Parrot of Doom 10:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Top Pop Catalog chart no longer combines total weeks. Piriczki (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Any noteworthy bad reviews?

I just noticed how all the reviews are good. 8/10 and B seem to be the worst. Are there any reliable - hopefully noteworthy - reviews that slammed the album that we could use? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Roy Hollingworth's is about the worst of them, but that was of the reception, not the album, I think. Parrot of Doom 09:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Set track-table for WP:Accessibility

I am widening the track-table to display on narrow screens, or for readers with larger browser text-size, or 800x600 resolution, per policy WP:Accessibility. The track-table, when viewed on narrow screens, had been squeezed into only half the space available. Such crowding of text, in one of the WP:Featured articles, can be avoided by resetting the track-table to cover the minimum width of the screen, such as width=585px. If other Pink Floyd albums also have crowded track-tables, then they should be widened, as well. Proper formatting for 800x600 resolution has been required by WP:Accessibility since before May 2009: please consider readability for these other users. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Accessibility is a guideline, not a policy, and no matter how you choose to justify it the modifications you've been making to this table look awful. Nothing I can see at WP:ALBUM would support the changes you have been making, and so I have reverted them...again. I suggest if you have a problem with this, and wish to change the default recommendation for all album articles, that you post at WT:ALBUM. Parrot of Doom 13:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility is a requirement; but table-width isn't really an accessibility issue. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox reviews

I would like to remind editors of Wikipedia:Albums#Professional_reviews. Reviews should not be placed in the infobox anymore. This is an old style which is being removed. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think its important just to comment that not everybody agrees with this finding. While I'll not change it back without further comment, aesthetically the article looks messy with the review box in the reviews section, and certainly on my display (Chrome in 1680px) the formatting of one of the quote boxes is now interfering with the text. I wish I'd known about the discussion at WP:ALBUM, because perhaps then I might have been able to contribute to it. Parrot of Doom 15:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the best way to truly handle it is to not use that infobox. :) I just put it there you don't lose the citations. It would be better to have this information in prose if possible rather than text. For example, the article on Loveless does not use this box and only cites the information when appropriate. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Its all there in prose (IIRC), well, certainly the most important reviews are. You can delete it if you like. Actually, it'd be better if it were on this talk page - that way its easy to find if ever anyone wants to restore it. I'm reasonably certain that one of those clever bots would rescue the citations inside an hour. Parrot of Doom 15:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Song pages

It seems a shame that the information on the song pages is getting wiped off and replaced with redirects to this page, which is too loaded with information to discuss individual songs. Given that this is one of the best selling albums of all time and certainly one of the most critically praised, I'd say the whole album is made of of notable songs and it's worthwhile making an exception. Does anyone agree here? 92.15.90.244 (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

i definitely agree with you. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE INDIVIDUAL SONG PAGES?! pink floyd on wikipedia was once very nice because every song from their studio albums had a page of its own. this is a crime. we must bring them back at once! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouthsinstatic (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking Breathe for an example, I'd suggest that if you want individual song pages, that you get busy citing them from reliable sources. The article I linked appears to be nothing but original research. Parrot of Doom 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the page shows the difference between original research (e.g. information on the lyrics) and where the editor found a reliable source but couldn't be bothered to add in the references. In any case, a lack of references is not enough to justify blanking a page. 92.15.58.243 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom is correct. See the centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd, and also WP:NSONGS. There is no point in restoring these articles unless they actually contain verifiable information that would not for some reason fit on the album article. --John (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say that Breathe (say) contains no verifiable info when it appears to me to have 3 or 4 published refs? It would also be helpful if you could link to specific bits of long talk pages, and indeed of WP:NSONGS. Occuli (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I said it had no verifiable info that is not/could not appear on the album article. Let's take a look at the 3 published refs, shall we? So, we have Mabbett, Andy (1995), The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd, being used to verify which album it appears on, its length, whether it was or wasn't a standalone track, and that it appears on PULSE. Then we have Richard Chapman (1994), Guitar: Music History Players, verifying that David Gilmour plays lap steel guitar with a volume pedal and several overdubs on the song. Ho hum. Finally, we have Allmusic to verify that "Speak To Me" and "Breathe" are conjoined on most CD versions of the album. Like I say, nothing referenced that couldn't be/ shouldn't be/ isn't on the album article. Do you honestly think that having standalone articles like this enhances our project? If you do, I'd love to hear your reasoning. --John (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do honestly think that stand-alone articles on songs enhance the project. At the very most I would put a tag on asking for more references - there is nothing controversial about any of the material. I would expect Andy Mabbett could supply some refs from the 70s if it is an issue ... I am completely sure that the archives of Rolling Stone and NME will have detailed song by song coverage of this seminal album, as will many other places. For lesser albums I might well support a single separate article with detailed info on each of the songs, rather than individual articles. I have always been baffled by those who maintain that removing info altogether is somehow an advance. (I would still appreciate focused links to the bits of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd and also WP:NSONGS which you think are relevant.) Occuli (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I added those "Ho hum" references. Parrot of Doom was right, so in response I added two more references and trimmed down the content a bit. I was not logged in at the time. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breathe (Pink Floyd song) for more on this. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Alan Parsons

There seems to be some confusion about the Grammy Award (nomination) Alan Parsons received for his work on the album. Apparently, the source used in the article says he received an award for "Best Engineered Album (Non-Classical)", which is not true - he received a nomination for the award. In 1973 - the year of the album's release - Armin Steiner won for Neil Diamond's Moods. In 1974 - the year in which the award would have actually been given out to Parsons - Malcolm Cecil and Robert Margouleff won for Stevie Wonder's Innervisions. The Grammy Awards website can verify this. And if you do a search for Alan Parsons, you will find he has never won a Grammy. A few references that can be used as replacements: Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound, Big Bang Baby: The Rock Trivia Book

I'm finding there are quite a few references that are actually wrong on this fact, including Comfortably Numb: The Inside Story and Guitar World presents Pink Floyd. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's all fine, however it was my mistake to write 1973 (when it should have been an award for 1973). As for your comment on the edit along the lines of how this article achieved FA, well we can only go on what the sources tell us. I can cross-check a number of things, but not everything. Parrot of Doom 20:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand - I was under the impression that the information was simply not well-researched, but as you said (and I've shown in a few other sources), the information has actually been inaccurately published, in several places actually. That's not the fault of any of the contributors to this article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability issues for tributes?

Parrot of Doom, whats up with throwing out perfectly good and relevant information? I thought I was doing a pretty good job especially considering the original "prose" you're defending is a confused jumble that has no order either chronological or logical. I thought the Alan Parsons acknowledgment was enough of a source to establish notability for MOON8 on it's own but it's also been covered by the Guardian, Wired and BoingBoing when some of these other projects that the page still lists (such as the Squirrels parody) did not receive as much coverage. The Glenn Beck Program is one of the top ten nationally syndicated talk radio programs in the United States - it's not like this is some small-time local DJ nobody's heard of. And certainly the Problemaddicts and other samples are at least as notable as the ones already there.

Wikipedia seems more like the edit WAR that anyone can FIGHT if they ever want to help or add anything. --Nerd42 (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Before you start making unwarranted observations on editors' motives, you should familiarise yourself with a few points. First, this is a featured article, which means that its sources and content must be of the highest quality available. Sources (you added) such as [3], [4] and [5] would almost certainly fail the reliable sources test. Second, additions such as "Pink Floyd's "Money" is heavily and obviously sampled in the track "Let a Ho Be a Ho" from the Geto Boys' self-titled album.", completely unsourced, are a bit of a no-no. Third, as for the Glenn Beck material, what relevance does Glenn Beck speaking over music from this album have, to this album? Just because someone famous used a bit of music from this album in a broadcast does not make that inherently notable, or worthy of inclusion. Its a similar story with the Nintendo version; is it really that noteworthy? The Guardian doesn't really state much more than the obvious, and makes no attempt to compare this version to the original. I'm not convinced that its at all relevant. Fourth, lists are to be avoided wherever possible. Parrot of Doom 21:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The squirrel's parody fails the test you mention, as it's only referenced on their web site. As for the samples, the tracks and albums themselves ARE the sources, the sample is unmistakable, give it a listen and the Problemaddicts release says what it's doing right on it. There generally aren't academic sources for hip hop samples. The Glenn Beck rendition isn't just "using a bit of music" it's a large section of the album - I didn't mention Dave Ramsey's use of a sample from Money on his show every day for that reason. I don't want to fight over the Glenn Beck essay but certainly MOON8 and Dark Side of Oz are notable - more notable than some of the crap that's on there now. --Nerd42 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're complaining about the Problemaddicts, its still on there (although how do you know they sampled the effects, and didn't recreate them?) and Glenn Beck can use whatever music he likes, but unless you can demonstrate a good reason why his choice is relevant to this album then in my mind its relevant only to him, and his article—not this one. As for Moon8, if its so notable then I'm sure you'll be able to find something that says it is.

This section of the article doesn't have to be a list of every single instance (no matter how minor) in which the album has re-appeared in other performers' works; there's a special tool for people who want that information, its called Google. Parrot of Doom 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that they didn't re-create but did sample Pink Floyd in Dark Side of Oz. Just listen. (interestingly, that track has the line "Roger Waters can sue us for dough that we don't have" in it LOL) If you don't think the Glenn Beck essay is notable then OK. And I do of course realize you don't post everything. I didn't try to post my own DSotM sample for instance. The Telegraph has also picked up the MOON8 story - making it four times more notable than the Squirrels parody that has no news stories on it. --Nerd42 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be obvious to you that they sampled the album but it isn't to me, and still I haven't seen anything of interest in the Moon8 piece. By your reckoning, if I went into my back yard and recreated the album with cat meows and pan lids, and a few minor comments (but no critical analysis) in the press were made here and there, it'd also be relevant to this article.

BTW it took me about 2 minutes to improve the sourcing for The Squirrels, since so much is readily available. Sadly the same cannot be said of the Problemaddicts, who don't seem notable enough to warrant much comment on the few reliable sources I can find. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what I'm seeing here is basically a bias against chiptunes combined with an elitism internal to Wikipedia. What Reising actually says in the book you're using as a source is how un-notable and crappy the Squirrels parody is compared to other efforts. That book was published in 2005. Dark Side of Oz came out in July, 2008 and MOON8 in March, 2010. You can't expect someone like Reising to have picked up on something in the future. What coverage a cover version of anything could reasonably be expected to get has definitely been got by MOON8. --Nerd42 (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, what you're seeing is an unwillingness to allow this article to turn into a list of pop trivia. Parrot of Doom 07:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, what I'm seeing is exactly what I said. --Nerd42 (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Individual tracks

I've noticed recently that each cover of the album is being listed in the article about each individual track. I think it would be better to have a "cover versions of DSotM" article, and put that in the "see also" of each track's article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That might be good except when it comes to Dark Side of the Moon people cover the entire album, several of the songs in a row, and also do stuff like the Problemaddicts Dark Side of Oz that uses tons of different samples from all over the album --Nerd42 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why no list of critics' reviews?

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.252 (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of info about what critics have and had to say about the album under "Release" and "Legacy." Do you mean a list of critics who reviewed the album or the actual reviews themselves? In either case, it's redundant considering there's plenty of stuff about critics and reviews under those two sections. — Malcolm (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Parsons, Waters, Parsons, Wright, Parsons, Mason, Parsons, Gilmour, and Parsons

Is it just me or is engineer Parsons getting an awful lot of press in this article? Sure, he had his contributions but I come across the guy in virtually every paragraph. Isn't that a bit much? Compare it, for example, to George Martin in the Sgt Peppers article... 109.178.208.133 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

His name is mentioned 19 times. Wrights, 27 times. Waters, 44 times. Gilmour, 27 times. Mason, 30 times. Parrot of Doom 07:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

'advanced recording techniques'?

"The group used some of the most advanced recording techniques of the time, including multitrack recording and tape loops."

These examples are quite poor. When DSOTM was recorded, multitrack recording was not considered an 'advanced recording technique'. It is used on just about every pop record of the time. Producing a tape loop is about as 'advanced' as fixing a broken piece of tape. And it's not a recording technique. Wysgeer (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is just a summary of the article. Read on. Parrot of Doom 10:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I did.

I think the text could benefit from a bit of toning down.

When Alan Parsons records the same part twice he's 'perfecting the use of studio techniques'. When Roger Waters sings a song he's 'forcing the listener to recognise the common traits shared by humanity'. When someone says: "Some day, we'll all be dead", it's a 'philosophical quote'. When a band member goes to the football or watches a tv programme 'the recording sessions suffer an interruption'.

As much as some people may be impressed with this album, many of the facts mentioned in the article aren't as remarkable as they're made out to be. Of course the recording technique was state of the art, as may be expected when a leading act in the entertainment industry is using an expensive studio like Abbey Road, but the explicit mentioning of 'the most advanced recording techniques of the time', suggests there's something extra noteworthy about the techniques used for this specific album. I couldn't find convincing examples of that, neither in the lead, nor in the article proper.

What might be noteworthy about the recording techniques is the fact that the band used them extensively (as is already suggested by the opening sentence where the term 'progressive rock' is used). Wysgeer (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, "the most advanced recording techniques of the time" is quite an overstatment, if not patently false. For one thing, Abbey Road studios were not known for having the most modern equipment then. When The Dark Side of the Moon was recorded in 1972, 24-track and 32-track recording was considered state-of-the-art. The fact that they had to do reduction mixes to free up tracks indicates somewhat primitive recording techniques, not advanced ones. And tape loops had been used by the Beatles at Abbey Road years earlier, in 1966. Piriczki (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

it isn't something about which I have particularly strong feelings so I'll not automatically object to any changes, however most of the sources on thus article are almost reverential in tone, and I don't think they're that way for no reason. I suggest u watch the classic albums doco on YouTube, it may help. Parrot of Doom 16:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind advice. I've watched the documentary and it seems to confirm what Piriczki already mentioned: the recording techniques weren't that advanced at all. Those involved speak nostalgically about the primitive methods used to keep dozens of separate recordings in sync. I especially liked the part where several people emphasized the importance of the emptiness in 'Us and Them', followed by Alan Parsons demonstrating how to fill up this important emptiness with an intrusive echo.

Maybe a written article is just not the right format for offering insight in the production process of a music recording. Wysgeer (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably a little too emotionally connected to this article since it was one of the first FAs I contributed to, and I worked pretty hard doing it. I'd probably write it a bit more dispassionately if I were creating it now. I'm not particularly concerned that this is a major problem, so if anyone wants to weed out some of the more objectionable material I won't mind. I'll probably just copyedit any changes, if needed. IIRC it was Chris Thomas who did the echoes in Us and Them. Parrot of Doom 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The amount of research that has gone into this article is admirable, but it's just a bit too much for the casual reader, looking for the basic facts. (At least for this reader, it was.)

Since English isn't my native language I'm hesitant about rewriting large parts, but for the lead, I would suggest something like this:

The group made extensive use of the recording techniques available at the time, including multitrack recording and tape loops. Engineer Alan Parsons received a Grammy Award nomination for his work on the album. He also instigated an improvised contribution by guest vocalist Clare Torry. Analogue synthesisers were given prominence in several tracks, and a series of recorded interviews with staff and band personnel provided the source material for a range of quotations used throughout. Wysgeer (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Puddie Watts quote

I changed this to match the quote given in the citation, 

which is the Wikipedia article on "The Great Gig in the Sky." Jeffrw (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dark Side of the Moon - not The

I posted here last week that the album title was "Dark Side of the Moon" until 2003 when it became "The Dark Side of the Moon". There is no citation necessary for this clarification as it is the actual title of the album. If anything, the reference to the name change needs a citation, but in effect the entire article should be re-written to reflect the actual title of the album at the time of release. If a citation is necessary, it is from Comfortably Numb: The Inside Story of Pink Floyd by Mark Blake. Da Capo Press (2008).

To say that Pink Floyd released "The Dark Side of the Moon" in 1973 is just flat out wrong and should be addressed. This does not need a citation; it needs only for the person who wrote it to look at the album prior to 2003. The only reference to "The Dark Side of the Moon" is the final lyric of Brain Damage.

Whoever removed my contribution please explain why. And if it was the original author, please correct the title of the album. While Billboard's online 1973 archive includes the definitive article in the title, it is only so that the name can be hyper-linked to its current title. All reviews of the album prior to 2003 do not include the word "The". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeter (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Check your LP again, the label clearly says "The Dark Side of the Moon." Piriczki (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Page 176 of Comfortably Numb by Mark Blake: "Dark Side of the Moon (the definitive article would appear with the 2003 reissue)." Most reviews at that time referred to the album at "Dark Side of the Moon". The concert t-shirts in support of the tour say Dark Side of the Moon. Now, on some albums that I've seen the record itself uses the definitive article. Others do not. My copy is buried in my attic somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeter (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That book is only partially correct. The album, released as Harvest SHVL 804 in the UK and Capitol SMAS 11163 in the US in 1973, was titled The Dark Side of the Moon. The first release of the album on compact disc format (Harvest/Capitol CDP 46011) omitted the definite article "the" from the title for some reason. With the 2003 SACD release, the definite article "the" was restored. Piriczki (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Vocomotion

A group called vocomotion recorded an all a cappella version of the dark side of the moon. I know almost nothing about it. I ordered a copy of it from mp3 panda, and it is impressive. Does anybody know more about the group or when this was recorded. It should probably merit mention on the list of covers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.8.81 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That they covered this album is probably more worthy of mention on their own article. They don't seem like a particularly well known group. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Original US Release Date

All sources agree the album was released in March 1973, but there are many contradictory release dates all around the web and books, with different sources giving various dates such as March 10, March 20, and March 24 as the release dates. But for the US the most likely date of all must have been March 1, because there's something to cite from the actual time of the album's release and nothing out there to my knowledge to go against it. The front page of the February 24, 1973 issue of Billboard carried an ad announcing the album was "available March 1"[6]. The following week on March 3, Billboard carried ads for the album on both the front [7] and back pages, which would indicate the album made its release date on schedule that week. The album then entered the Billboard charts on March 17, 1973,[8] which also points to an early March release (albums took 2-3 weeks between selling and charting on Billboard back then - looking at the chart debut dates of very well-documented and widely anticipated releases like the Beatles and Dylan bears this out). To sum up I've got a primary document which I've cited giving the US scheduled release date, and no reason to believe that this release date slipped. Cbj77 (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to make this correction before but couldn't persuade other editors off a book source which unfortunately was inaccurate (see Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 3#Release date). I think it was the Mason book that had incorrect US release dates for several albums. The strange thing was the dates were all exactly seven days prior to the the albums' debut date on the Billboard chart, which is impossible as I explained in the earlier discussion. I think it's safe to say the album was released March 1, but one thing is certain, the release date could not have been March 10. Piriczki (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why must an unreleased EMI remaster be mentioned?

Would somebody mind explaining for me why its so important to "announce" that EMI are remastering this album? Why not wait until their remaster has been released/reviewed, at which point we can judge its suitability for inclusion in this article? We're not a source of news. Parrot of Doom 15:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why we wouldn't mention it at all. This is more than a simple remaster. There are six discs for this album alone in the Immersion version. No, we don't have any reviews yet but seeing as how this is the biggest release (yes, it's several releases over a few weeks but it's essentially all one huge release) in the band's history (bigger than the Shine On box set which didn't include unreleased material or band interviews) it bears at least some mention in the article. I realize that we're not a news source but, as I said in my edit summary, we have full articles on things that haven't happened yet (Olympics, the Super Bowl, films, books, government summits, etc) so why wouldn't we at least mention this release in this article? Dismas|^(talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been released yet? Parrot of Doom 16:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

PoD, do you have an objection to the existence of the Why Pink Floyd...? article? If not, why would you object to a simple mention of it here on this page? After all, surely an entire article is more weight and more of a WP:NOTNEWS violation. Dismas|^(talk) 04:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at that article, I do have an objection to its existence, seeing as it's nothing more than a bit of advertising for the new material. Parrot of Doom 06:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Wikipedia's objection to future events is when they are far in the future, esp. too far for any relevance, or when the date is imprecise and uncertain. While they are close enough that they are relevant to the article, "2011-2012" is very shaky. Dismas, it appears Parrot of Doom would have brought the Why Pink Floyd...? article to attention if he/she were aware of its existence, so don't discount his/her silence under the assumption that the user considers the article fine for Wikipedia, but not for mentioning on this article. Clearly, this release does bring much to the table, and PoD's concern is not of notability, but that its addition to the article now will be too soon. My opinion on the matter is that, while the remaster is not to the level that we'd disclaim it as a "rumor", its release date is so imprecisely laid down that its date holds little value to the reader. Therefore, I suggest that you wait before adding it back into the article, not until it hits store shelves, but until you see the release date of at least one title down to the month, at which point, you can explain in the article in a short sentence after that "the rest are on the way".—X-Fi6 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your third opinion. If he wasn't aware of the article for Why Pink Floyd...? then he was negligent about reading what was posted. A link to that article was included in the text that was added here to this article. And a release date has been announced. Amazon lists it as being released on 27 September. As does the news page of Floydian Slip, a nationally syndicated Pink Floyd radio show. This source from Germany lists the 23rd though it doesn't mention DSOTM specifically and release dates for music albums are known to differ from one country to another. Dismas|^(talk) 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm requesting that the following text be added to end of the "Reissues and remastering" section:

On September 27, 2011, EMI will begin to re-release three different versions of The Dark Side of the Moon as part of the Why Pink Floyd...? campaign, which features remastered editions of the Pink Floyd catalogue.

Per the third opinion above, the addition is allowed since the condition that "you see the release date of at least one title down to the month" has been satisfied. Dismas|^(talk) 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's so important, it'll no doubt be reviewed, and at that point we can judge its suitability for inclusion. Right now it's just another bit of trivia based on tenuous sources. Try and show some editorial restraint, we're an encyclopaedia, not NME. Parrot of Doom 08:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how you can say that a reissue of this size is of little or no importance. If you don't like it, get a fourth opinion or whatever the next step in the dispute resolution process is. We were given a stipulation, that a release date be announced. That has been satisfied. A sentence is not going to keep this from being a good article. So just remember that you don't own this article and let it go. Dismas|^(talk) 09:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't our place to judge its importance - that's the job of reviewers, who no doubt will comment on it in the various media outlets. I have no intention of letting it go, I don't think it should be mentioned until it has been released and reviewed. Oh and fuckoff with the ownership comment. Parrot of Doom 09:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, this talk page is one big monument to how you're trying to own this article. Several editors are here explaining how they disagree with you and you keep reverting our edits. Dismas|^(talk) 12:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read their explanations and countered with my own. People say all kinds of things on Wikipedia, and they're wrong a great deal of the time - as you are, here. Still, while you can't edit this article, maybe you should add some citations to this article. Parrot of Doom 13:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Is everyone who disagrees with you "wrong"? You have several editors who disagree with what you're trying to do with this article and you fail to go with consensus. And Bald Knob Cross has nothing to do with this, so why not stay on topic, yeah? Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: The consensus is not clear to me. If some of the other editors involved with this article could make their views known, I think we could settle this issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why must an unreleased EMI remaster be mentioned? I know the answer. Because it has been officially confirmed. TGilmour (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be the reason, yes. It was all over the news. To such an extent that if it was now not released, that would need to be mentioned in the article - David Gerard (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of mention of this re-release. This is notable, supported by references, linked to a specific article, not without precedent^[9] and less than 3 months away. A simple sentence here and now is a worthwhile placeholder until it can be expanded significantly once released and professionally reviewed. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 08:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Professional reviews in infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why must an unreleased EMI remaster be mentioned?

Would somebody mind explaining for me why its so important to "announce" that EMI are remastering this album? Why not wait until their remaster has been released/reviewed, at which point we can judge its suitability for inclusion in this article? We're not a source of news. Parrot of Doom 15:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why we wouldn't mention it at all. This is more than a simple remaster. There are six discs for this album alone in the Immersion version. No, we don't have any reviews yet but seeing as how this is the biggest release (yes, it's several releases over a few weeks but it's essentially all one huge release) in the band's history (bigger than the Shine On box set which didn't include unreleased material or band interviews) it bears at least some mention in the article. I realize that we're not a news source but, as I said in my edit summary, we have full articles on things that haven't happened yet (Olympics, the Super Bowl, films, books, government summits, etc) so why wouldn't we at least mention this release in this article? Dismas|^(talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been released yet? Parrot of Doom 16:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

PoD, do you have an objection to the existence of the Why Pink Floyd...? article? If not, why would you object to a simple mention of it here on this page? After all, surely an entire article is more weight and more of a WP:NOTNEWS violation. Dismas|^(talk) 04:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at that article, I do have an objection to its existence, seeing as it's nothing more than a bit of advertising for the new material. Parrot of Doom 06:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Wikipedia's objection to future events is when they are far in the future, esp. too far for any relevance, or when the date is imprecise and uncertain. While they are close enough that they are relevant to the article, "2011-2012" is very shaky. Dismas, it appears Parrot of Doom would have brought the Why Pink Floyd...? article to attention if he/she were aware of its existence, so don't discount his/her silence under the assumption that the user considers the article fine for Wikipedia, but not for mentioning on this article. Clearly, this release does bring much to the table, and PoD's concern is not of notability, but that its addition to the article now will be too soon. My opinion on the matter is that, while the remaster is not to the level that we'd disclaim it as a "rumor", its release date is so imprecisely laid down that its date holds little value to the reader. Therefore, I suggest that you wait before adding it back into the article, not until it hits store shelves, but until you see the release date of at least one title down to the month, at which point, you can explain in the article in a short sentence after that "the rest are on the way".—X-Fi6 (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your third opinion. If he wasn't aware of the article for Why Pink Floyd...? then he was negligent about reading what was posted. A link to that article was included in the text that was added here to this article. And a release date has been announced. Amazon lists it as being released on 27 September. As does the news page of Floydian Slip, a nationally syndicated Pink Floyd radio show. This source from Germany lists the 23rd though it doesn't mention DSOTM specifically and release dates for music albums are known to differ from one country to another. Dismas|^(talk) 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm requesting that the following text be added to end of the "Reissues and remastering" section:

On September 27, 2011, EMI will begin to re-release three different versions of The Dark Side of the Moon as part of the Why Pink Floyd...? campaign, which features remastered editions of the Pink Floyd catalogue.

Per the third opinion above, the addition is allowed since the condition that "you see the release date of at least one title down to the month" has been satisfied. Dismas|^(talk) 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's so important, it'll no doubt be reviewed, and at that point we can judge its suitability for inclusion. Right now it's just another bit of trivia based on tenuous sources. Try and show some editorial restraint, we're an encyclopaedia, not NME. Parrot of Doom 08:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how you can say that a reissue of this size is of little or no importance. If you don't like it, get a fourth opinion or whatever the next step in the dispute resolution process is. We were given a stipulation, that a release date be announced. That has been satisfied. A sentence is not going to keep this from being a good article. So just remember that you don't own this article and let it go. Dismas|^(talk) 09:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't our place to judge its importance - that's the job of reviewers, who no doubt will comment on it in the various media outlets. I have no intention of letting it go, I don't think it should be mentioned until it has been released and reviewed. Oh and fuckoff with the ownership comment. Parrot of Doom 09:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, this talk page is one big monument to how you're trying to own this article. Several editors are here explaining how they disagree with you and you keep reverting our edits. Dismas|^(talk) 12:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read their explanations and countered with my own. People say all kinds of things on Wikipedia, and they're wrong a great deal of the time - as you are, here. Still, while you can't edit this article, maybe you should add some citations to this article. Parrot of Doom 13:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Is everyone who disagrees with you "wrong"? You have several editors who disagree with what you're trying to do with this article and you fail to go with consensus. And Bald Knob Cross has nothing to do with this, so why not stay on topic, yeah? Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: The consensus is not clear to me. If some of the other editors involved with this article could make their views known, I think we could settle this issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why must an unreleased EMI remaster be mentioned? I know the answer. Because it has been officially confirmed. TGilmour (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be the reason, yes. It was all over the news. To such an extent that if it was now not released, that would need to be mentioned in the article - David Gerard (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of mention of this re-release. This is notable, supported by references, linked to a specific article, not without precedent^[10] and less than 3 months away. A simple sentence here and now is a worthwhile placeholder until it can be expanded significantly once released and professionally reviewed. Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 08:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)