Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC: Should this book title be specified in this article's ratings template?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are several books published in the MusicHound guide series (MusicHound Rock, MusicHound Jazz, etc.), one of which--MusicHound Rock--is cited in this article's ratings template. I recently changed the link to a piped link--from [[MusicHound]] to ''[[MusicHound|MusicHound Rock]]''--but was reverted... Should the book title be specified or not? Dan56 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - per my points below. Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• No, as discussed below. JG66 (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Using the Rough Guide/Elvis example below, how would someone know whether the source was The Rough Guide to Elvis, The Rough Guide to Rock & Roll, The Rough Guide to Memphis, etc.? If a reader wanted to see the information for themselves, they'd need the full title. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes—otherwise it's unclear which MusicHound book is being cited (it's in the citations, of course, but this just makes it easier to the average clueless reader). Eman235/talk 19:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Elaborating my arguments from the edit summaries in the edit war which led to this RfC:

• The "series"/"compiler"/(whatever the hell "MusicHound" actually is; an organization maybe? an abstract entity? idk the article on it isn't very clear)... ahem. "MusicHound" isn't being cited, but a specific work/title in the series is; MusicHound Rock is clearly the publication/work/source of the review, as indicated in the bibliography where the citation is; no mention of "MusicHound" the "compiler", just the title and the publisher, which is Visible Ink Press. Dan56 (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• As mentioned in one of the reverts, it's no more necessary than it would be for one of the early Rough Guides books when they used to provide star ratings. The Rough Guide to Elvis, for instance. Also, if adhering to the precise wording in the source is so important, then the 2004 RS Album Guide should appear as The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, right? Similarly, we'd end up with a real mouthful each time whenever the scores from Mojo or NME were in fact sourced from those magazines' respective Mojo Special Limited Edition or NME Originals series. As with Rough Guides, many of the Mojo specials and NME Originals titles do not include ratings, but for those that do, the source field in an album ratings box would need to read, say, Mojo Special Limited Edition: David Bowie. It's unnecessary. JG66 (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• According to the album ratings template page, "The information in the reviewer field should be the name of the source", which in this case, the source is the book, MusicHound Rock. Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• As above. JG66 (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Also, if there are different books in this "MusicHound" series, it's worth specifying; I've cited MusicHound Jazz, for instance, at a number of jazz articles' ratings templates, and other book titles in this article's ratings template are specified; Christgau's Record Guide (not Robert Christgau) and The Rolling Stone Album Guide (not Rolling Stone). Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• As above. JG66 (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Since being reverted over this minor change is what led me open this RfC, I ask, what fucking harm is there?... Thank you :-) Dan56 (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, about as little "fucking harm" as anything that might be changed in an article, d'ya think?! You adhere to guidelines so rigidly when it suits you, but at the same time you go your own way with regard to chart names – inventing titles that are both unofficial and not per the sources that support the info. Eg at The Sea (Corinne Bailey Rae album)#Charts, and as always with that particular issue, I see your approach being contested again. JG66 (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oooooh saucy!! Boy did I touch a nerve :DDD Have you been keeping tabs on me, lover? ;) Dan56 (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

ROFL! Hey come on, people, relax! LOL. Seriously, everyone here are volunteers, let's try to be civilized. :) Put your clothes back on and relax. LOL. Damotclese (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Album or studio album

After my misunderstanding of calling DSotM the band's "eighth studio album", it was pointed out to me that while it is a studio album, and Pink Floyd's eighth album, it's not necessarily their eighth studio album. However, the article "Pink Floyd discography" lists it as their eighth studio album. As More and Obscured by Clouds are also considered soundtrack albums, are there inaccuracies here that should be fixed? –Matthew - (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not so much an inaccuracy as it is an example of the confusion and contradiction caused by Wikipedia editors' insistence on classifying albums as "studio" or otherwise. They don't all fit into those arbitrary categories. And of all the information that one would want or need to know about this album, the fact that it was their eighth is probably the least significant of all. Not sure why that even belongs in the lead sentence. Piriczki (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think people probably do want to know where an album chronologically fits in within a band's discography. Due to the popularity of this album in particular, people might assume this album was Pink Floyd's first, but knowing that it was their eighth conveys a sense of development and establishes a timeframe. –Matthew - (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

" but departs from instrumental thematic by founding member Syd Barrett."?!?

What the hell does this mean, and can someone rewrite it more clearly? Or at least explain it? I'd just quietly fix it, as I often do when I encounter this kind of not-English in an otherwise good Wikipedia article, but in this case I have literally no idea how to go about doing so. 24.76.164.207 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That edit was made by @Sheldon.andre: on August 9, see it here. I would just change it back to the sentence that was there before, that had been there for at least a year or more, quote: "It built on ideas explored in the band's earlier recordings and live shows, but lacks the extended instrumental excursions that characterised their previous work following the departure in 1968 of founder member, principal composer, and lyricist, Syd Barrett." --Krelnik (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and boldly made that edit. --Krelnik (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that I was taking LSD. Not being mean or anything, but sorry for making the edit. sa (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Genres

I add more specific genres. Do not change — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.7.216.226 (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:ALBUMAVOID. We could add "art rock" and "psychedelic rock" but you need to find a better source than RateYourMusic.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Release Date

According to pinkfloyd.com [1] the album was released on March 10 in USA and March 23 in UK, instead of 1 and 16 respectively, as it's mentioned on the current references. Is there any other way of cross-checking the actual release dates of the album? Christou c (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Several sources indicate release dates for Pink Floyd albums that have been shown to be inaccurate. The inaccurate dates appear to be based on incorrect assumptions about chart debut dates or simply incorrectly substituting the chart date for the release date. One thing for certain is the album was not released on Saturday, March 10th. See Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/Archive 6#RfC: Is Billboard magazine a reliable source?. Piriczki (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Concept

Most artists would object. Many reviewers would disagree. This section is out of line, out of place, egregiously flawed, and pretentious.<!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.233.41.89 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You will need to be more specific if you hope to discuss the issues you perceive. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Chart Performance

One thing in particular with Billboard's Top 200 Album chart is I believe 'Dark Side of the Moon' holds the distinction of being on that list as the longest in history of album "charting". I do know, or I have heard, that the album was over 20 years non-stop on the Billboard Top 200 chart. This should be mentioned in this section once validated.The Budzone guy 23:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs)

I too remember hearing that, it was in the mid-1990's, and from around then on Billboard started specifically excluding TDSOTM album sales from being included in the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.51 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

British English

Should "synthesizer" not be "synthesiser" on this page, as per British spelling? This would be consistent with other -ise/ize spellings such as realise/realize, penalise/penalize, and of course synthesise/synthesize.

Sources for British use: Guardian (UK paper) style guide, Oxford English dictionary, Collins dictionary Popcornduff (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

In any other instance, I'd agree: ise/iser in British English, not ize/izer. But I see an exception with "synthesizer" as a musical instrument, particularly a Moog synthesizer, whereas an agent of biological synthesis, say, or someone/something that synthesises is a "synthesiser".

Out of those linked sources, I'd adhere to the Collins one, which states that both spellings appear in British English. I appreciate that the Oxford Dictionary page is unambiguous on the issue, but the Guardian page is part of a style guide and is therefore stating editorial preference. JG66 (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Yes, the Guardian thing is definitely their editorial preference, but I think it indicates a general use of "synthesiser" in British writing... can anyone find any other examples either way? If most respectable British publications use "-ize" then I'd find that convincing.

I'm afraid I don't understand your Moog/biological argument. Could you explain it more? Popcornduff (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The BBC seems to use both, eg here and here. So does the Telegraph: here and here. An initial, completely unscientific scan of British sources looks like both are used, so it looks like it's going to come down to an editorial decision for us too. Right now I'd still advocate for "ise" for consistency with other British spellings though I don't feel strongly about it. Popcornduff (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There're many editors who use user scripts to maintain issues like this, I use User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js and according to the version I last used it on the script did not change synthesizer to synthesiser. So synthesizer is fine with me. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't it? Should it? Popcornduff (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Related move request

There's a move request that relates to a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this page: Talk:Dark side of the Moon#Requested move 26 January 2019. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Progressive Rock/Art Rock

The article currently lists the album's genre as "progressive rock." But several sources identify it as "art rock" including Apple.com, Rate Your Music, and All Music. Art rock has been added to the article, but it was unsourced so removed. Anyone know a good way of adding art rock, or who will do it themselves? Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The AllMusic source describes it as "ponderous, neo-psychedelic art rock" "jazz fusion" and "blues-rock before turning back to psychedelia". So I would say that if art rock is added, so should jazz-fusion, blues rock and psychedelia. [[User:Roderickstilley|Roderickstilley]] ([[User talk:Roderickstilley|talk]]) (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't find search tags in music catalogs to be very reliable or useful, honestly. Genre diddlers just wind up being massive time sinks, esp. here, considering "art rock" is just another way of saying "prog rock". ValarianB (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

AllMusic, RateYourMusic, etc are not a sources that can be used in Wikipedia, as they are an open-source databases like Wikipedia, so it seems like this discussion is on opinion. We all have one and they all stink. IMO, we need to leave it as prog rock unless some has an ACTUAL citation stating otherwise/additional. Ckruschke (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Agreed. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

While Wikipedia does classify RateYourMusic as an "online collaborative metadata database," it classifies AllMusic as an "American online music database." And Apple Music is classified as "a music and video streaming service developed by Apple Inc." Even if the first source won't stand, I believe the other two will. Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

And there's also a source quoted in the Art Rock article. The article quotes Michael Campbell, Popular Music in America, 2012. The author specifically names The Dark Side of the Moon. Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Alden Loveshade, who opened this thread. Progressive and art rock are not synonymous. The crux of my argument for wanting to include art rock as a genre can be found here: [2]. This encapsulates material from the Wikipedia Art Rock page itself (containing numerous references to Pink Floyd, and even a picture of them performing Dark Side). Are we saying that this isn't a reliable source? Also, note, for example, that the genre for Selling England by the Pound is Progressive Rock / Art Rock. As things stand with our current assignment, Dark Side represents a purer form of the prog rock genre than that benchmark! That's not really acceptable, especially when Floyd's prog credentials are a subject for frequent debate. We have a duty not to misinform. To be clear, my preference is for Art/Prog, but will settle for Prog/Art. AstralCiaran (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the point I made, which is that Erlewine in the AllMusic review describes it not just as "art rock" but also as "jazz fusion" and "blues-rock before turning back to psychedelia". So if we were to be consistent, as well as adding art rock we should also add the others he mentions. As for your comment "As things stand with our current assignment, Dark Side represents a purer form of the prog rock genre than that benchmark! That's not really acceptable, especially when Floyd's prog credentials are a subject for frequent debate. We have a duty not to misinform. To be clear, my preference is for Art/Prog, but will settle for Prog/Art." The reason Dark Side is considered progressive rock is that if you read the article you will see Dark Side topped lists by both Rolling Stone and Q Magazine for the greatest progressive rock album. Rodericksilly (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

AstralCiaran, art is a subset of prog, but they are also used interchangeably. But that's really besides the point. Per Template:Infobox_album#genre, the genre field is for information that is also important enough to mention in the body, with reliable sources to support it. It's not meant to list every little thing one personally scrapes off a music chart website and thinks is applicable.

In short; "progressive rock" is what the band and this album are most commonly described as. Genre fields should be left broad, and avoid the time sinks of genre diddling. I think WP:GWAR may be insightful here. ValarianB (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Apple Music link I gave says, "as much an aural collage as a straightforward art-rock treatise, the album uses its 43 minutes to...." It specifically calls the album art rock. The Rate Your Music link defines the primary genres as "Art Rock, Progressive Rock," and secondarily as "Psychedelic Rock, Space Rock." I think those are enough justification for including "art rock" in genre description in the Wikipedia article. Alden Loveshade (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

One thing it seems some editors don't realize is, community consensus trumps any source. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Art rock is not a subset of prog: e.g., The Kick Inside, coincidentally, financed and produced under the auspices of David Gilmour. Even if it was, qualification via a subgenre is common practice, used to provide more flavour.

Consider the top three in the Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time:

Sgt. Pepper's:	Rock, Pop, Psychedelia, Art rock
Pet Sounds:	Progressive pop, Chamber pop, Psychedelic pop, Art rock
Revolver:	Rock, Pop, Psychedelia, Psychedelic rock

That's four genre assignments deemed necessary for each of those. A single designation of progressive rock is simply not sufficient to give a fair portrayal of this eclectic and seminal work. For most musical cognoscenti, that would evoke early Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, ELP, and other bands with an essentially jazz/classical provenance.

It is also not fair to accuse us of genre diddling; very rarely do I feel sufficiently motivated to attempt a Wikipedia page update (first time ever modifying infobox->genre), but this was a glaring anomaly which I felt needed to be flagged, and justification for the change has been provided. Maybe, others will see this thread, and the inclusion of art rock as a genre will gain some momentum in future. AstralCiaran (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There is an error in the text of this subject

I brought this up in 2013, but my edit was reverted. I am unsure of the reason for that. In a message to me by Drmies he (I assume the gender) stated: "Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media." In the editing guidelines audio recordings are mentioned as an allowed form of reference. The text in question is '. . . closing words "there is no dark side in the moon, really. As a matter of fact it's all dark" . . .'. The words "As a" are incorrect. This is not something that is subject to doubt. It is a fact, a fact that is easily verifiable from the recording itself (although admittedly, these words are difficult to hear if the recording is played at normal listening levels--whatever that term implies). The speaker speaks the last sentence in that quotation as "Matter of fact it's all dark". Apparently I made this edit incorrectly in 2013. I would appreciate it if a more knowledgeable Wikipedian than I would tell me how to source this correctly. I'm sure all Wikipedians would prefer that there not be errors of fact in any article in Wikipedia. Gdthayer (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC) <The Dark Side Of The Moon, Side two, track five, "Eclipse">

Duration of the tracks

I just stumbled over the song durations. They add up to 42:29, not the stated 42:49. Also some of the individual durations seam to me, can not be correct. There is a comment in the source text, that the given durations come from the original vinyl. I can not comment on that, however, the durations from the 2011 master (from the Immersion box) are quite different (Speak to Me and Great Gig). I give them here for reference. Perhaps, an editor can have a look at that.

               Wiki        CD (2011)
Total:          42:49   42:58
"Speak to Me" 	1:30	1:07
"Breathe"       2:43	2:50
"On the Run"	3:30	3:45
"Time"	        6:53	6:53
"The Great Gig in the Sky" 	4:15	4:44
"Money" 	6:30	6:23
"Us and Them" 	7:51	7:49
"Any Colour You Like" 	3:24	3:26
"Brain Damage"  3:50	3:47
"Eclipse" 	2:03	2:13

--Mr.Steelydan (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The 2011 CD of DSOTM was remastered, and this is undoubtedly the source of the discrepancies that Mr.Steelydan listed above. Gdthayer (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

When work began on this-and-that

Can we get some dates on when work began on this-and-that, for the album? Individuals' work on it, band members together working on parts, band members practicing it, dates for those sorts of things? I'd like to know how long it really took to put the album together. Thank you! Misty MH (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Related RFD

There is a proposal to change a redirect to this article: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Dark side of the Moon -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

"Dark side of the moon" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dark side of the moon and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#Dark side of the moon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Release dates

I've found that the band's official web site shows 10 March 1973 and 16 March 1973 as release dates in USA and UK, respectively. Actual sources support different dates, I don't know which ones are right or not... I just notice it here, so it can be eventually corrected. --PedroAcero76 (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Pre-history chronology

I was the rock critic for the Harvard (U.) Independent in these years, and a huge Floyd fan, so my memory is very clear.

The first I heard of the new, epic Pink Floyd album was in a long feature article in a music mag written during or just after their 1972 U.S. tour. And the piece was definitely still called "Eclipse" at that time (more on that in a moment). And the narrative as presented here, where little time passes between discovering the title had already been used, and the failure of that album and resurrection of the intended title, makes little sense (Gilmour's quote suggests a long period of having to live with a title they didn't like much). Someone who has the two Pink Floyd books cited as sources need to check them. I suspect that the name was changed after the press debut and not changed back for some time.

At some point a November 1972 release date was suggested or announced in either New Musical Express or Melody Maker, two mags I bought regularly. I know this because I went to Discount Records in Harvard Square week after week looking for the new Floyd album "Eclipse." A bit later there was a news story about a delay in production. And here's the clincher re the title history: when I did find the new album in March, I was shocked by the utterly unfamiliar "new" title. This suggests that it was still called "Eclipse" as late as the late November (? early December?) announcement that the album would be delayed.

Now, if one reads the existing narrative, it's obviously out of order chronologically. The early tours with the piece are mentioned, and then the interruption to work La Valee, which is just a few weeks after the press debut and way before the U.S. tour. So the chronology in general needs to be made coherent, at the same as the start and end of the "Eclipse" title is corrected.

I suspect that the the Floyd books mention a delay in production in late 1972, but that this was omitted from the entry as excessive detail. But a November release date being public (even if only leaked or tentative) would change that. The long wait for the album by Floyd fans was a real thing, and it's not suggested here. Emvan (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Release history

This section only has the original release details. It would be good if it could list the reissues. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to Be Bold and make that happen. Ckruschke (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Ckruschke

I don't know the details. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Zmbro -- Please explain in plain English why you reverted the minor edits that I made in good faith on 21 September. The edits consisted of small and uncontroversial tweaks to grammar and phrasing of the kind which are commonly made to a manuscript before publication, and which I offered as improvements to the existing text. They did not involve change to, or addition of, any factual information. Before writing this message I re-read them all, carefully, in case I had missed something, but I still can't see why they were unacceptable. 194.81.226.132 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zmbro: courtesy ping. The edits you (IP) made were in the past tense were, as previously pointed out, in the past tense, which isn't how music articles are generally formatted. Since it's a featured article, it shouldn't be changed at all since your edits are at risk of reducing the overall quality of the article. ― TUNA × 13:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for getting back to me. I wasn't referring to the edits in which I mistakenly changed the tense from present to past. I acknowledge and apologise for my error, which was made in good faith. The past-tense changes also included other minor edits, which I have extracted and re-submitted separately (see edit history), and they were also reverted, I thought unnecessarily. I would like them to stand. 194.81.226.132 (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, some of this IP contributor's changes were indeed fixes. At present, the lead's second sentence is worded poorly. Primarily developed during live performances, the band premiered an early version of the suite several months before recording began. What it means to say is that the album was primarily developed during live performances. The poor comma placement instead makes the sentence imply that the band were the ones developed during live performances. Tkbrett (✉) 14:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that some of the things they wrote were improvements. However, writing "Dark Side of the Moon" without the The and no italics is simply not acceptable for an FA. I apologize for reverting the whole thing, I was on mobile at the time and doing partial reverts and such on that is way harder than it should be. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This IP is a 'he'. Yes, agreed - I've known the album as 'Dark Side of the Moon' since 1973, but I should have been careful to use the full title and italics. I endorse your correction. What is an FA? 194.81.226.132 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured article :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Album is called Dark Side of the Moon, not The Dark Side of the Moon

Dark Side of the Moon is the correct name of the album. It is NOT The Dark Side of the Moon!!!!!!!!!! 2601:44:100:E0E0:9550:DAD:F08A:1AE4 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The album title is "The Dark Side of the Moon". Check sources. Check the label on the vinyl record. Schazjmd (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the Dark Side of the Rainbow encyclopaedic or relevant?

The Dark Side of the Rainbow myth holds no water; it has been debunked time and again by everyone who had any involvement with the album and is purely a stoner's conspiracy theory which has been perpetuated on the internet. Does it really need to be in this article? It has no encyclopaedic interest. The Publius Enigma gets less mention than this online and that was a real Pink Floyd competition (or marketing stunt if you're cynical). I propose it be removed from this article. – Dyolf87 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it should be retained as it is well known. The more recent addition about the 1974 album however do not belong here and should go in its own article provided it is fully supported with citations.Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the theory is obvious nonsense, but so are many false ideas covered extensively on Wikipedia, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, astrology and Scientology. The idea is covered by reliable secondary sources and meets notability standards for Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"The Great Gig in the Sky" writing credit

The note says that Torry has been granted a credit since 2005, which is true. However, since 2011 her credit has been altered from being a co-composer to "vocal composition - Clare Torry" with the musical composition going back to being purely Rick Wright. This article should reflect this most recent change to how she is credited for her contribution. – Dyolf87 (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

£30 in 1973 is HOW much in 2023?

This is grossly inaccurate. This article claims that Clare Torry's £30 fee in 1973 is equivalent to £420 in 2023. The cited source does not even give inflation figures for 2023 nor does it arrive at £420 for real price, labour value, income value or economic share or any of the other matrices for which it converts £30 in 1973 to 2022-23. And, according to the Bank of England (a far more reliable source) £30 in 1973 = £287 in 2022 (2023 unavailable) which is a far more believable amount (which can be found here). In light of this I propose that this be swiftly changed. – Dyolf87 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

About the press citation

@Popcornfud: Hello! I've just seen your edit, so I wanted to clarify my previous addition: at the start of the bit I addressed as a quote from the original source (in its second half), the album's title is actually hyperlinked to the "Track listing" section of this article. I actually wanted to include that, too, but it seems like the "Press" template doesn't support any links other than the source's URL itself...

I hope this is a sufficient explanation.

Oltrepier (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: Oh, I forgot: I've just had a similar issue as I included a quote on this other article, as well. Oltrepier (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation. Sorry, I missed that link when reading the article. I've restored your addition to the talk page. Thanks for this contribution! Popcornfud (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Diamond

10X platinum = diamond Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

In which country? --Krótki (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Iconic album cover's US copyright status under discussion

I have taken the album cover to the Files for discussion venue just for its copyright status in the United States, not for any other reason. Your input shall be welcomed there. George Ho (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is showing the cover of an LP in an encyclopedia article about said LP not the epitome of fair use? Certainly moreso than a vectorized facsimile (aka derivative work)?

An album that came out yesterday will have its [most definitely copyrighted] sleeve in the article. Whether the artwork was submitted for copyright in the UK vs. the US in 1973 shouldn't matter, and even if it did, an svg that looks a whole lot like it is not an appropriate replacement. Gordonzed (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The SVG version is nominated for deletion in Commons. I just found out someone replaced the PNG version with SVG one, despite stale/failed discussion at FFD. Oh, and that discussion was solely about the album cover's US copyright status. By the way, to what "album" were you referring in the 2nd paragraph? –George Ho (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah okay, then we're all in agreement, 😂. Regarding the second paragraph, it was completely hypothetical. I just meant that any "album released yesterday" would automatically have its cover used for the associated Wikipedia article, and no one would have any qualms about it. Gordonzed (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is why the album cover on the top of the page is such low quality then. Cause I was planning to add a higher quality image, but then read about the image copyright stuff and backed down. AnonReason (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Parsons' quad mix released

I note that we don't mention the official release of this 4.0 original mix on the Immersion Boxset; is there some reason I'm not seeing here, or should I write it up?

Surprisingly small amount of talk on this article... I guess DSoTM isn't controversial  :-)
-- Baylink (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)