Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This article is slanted towards a David Gilmore POV

Saying the Waters-led era didn't start until 1981 is not reality. Especially since The Wall (1979) is pretty much a Waters autobiography. By the band's own admission, Dark Side of the Moon is the last time they functioned as an actual "band". Waters era begins in 1974 when they began plain Raving and Drooling and Gotta Be Crazy as their live shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.68.168 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusing timeline

The timeline gives the impression that Gilmore, Wright, and Mason still function as a working band. Since Wright is dead, and the last few times, to my knowledge that Mason and Gilmore have played Pink Floyd songs in public, they have been with Roger Waters, this seems misleading. --66.32.68.168 (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree... as well as that, the "members" section above that shows that some members were active until 2008? No idea where 2008 comes from; it seems pretty arbitrary. The timeline and members active dates should end at 1996, to match with the "years active" section of the infobox at the top of the page.
--82.29.19.22 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. In a few days, I will change it to reflect inactivity beginning in 1996 unless someone has an argument against that. CCS81 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem as though anyone supports the member section and timeline chart using a different dating paradigm than the rest of the article, so I went ahead and changed it to match the dates elsewhere in article (i.e., active until 1996, plus 2005). CCS81 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Album genre descriptions

The attempts to attribute genres to albums Dark Side of the Moon, Animals and The Wall as "art rock", "closer to heavy metal" and "also ... heavy metal" are complete non sequiturs, appearing to have been tacked on to otherwise cohesive paragraphs.

I would like to suggest removing these three sentences, or else reworking them into a more comprehensive and integrated description of the evolution of Pink Floyd's sound from album to album. 216.183.84.162 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC) MH

Pink Floyd are from "London, England"

Should be "London, England, United Kingdom". England is not a country. The UK is. 86.142.40.227 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Show us some research with references for tht one! Do you sell door to door too? 99.251.125.65 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike Leonard working at Hornsey College

Since none of the Floyds ever attended Hornsby, this datum is not related to Pink Floyd. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point. The article makes clear that one of the group's innovations were the multimedia shows. It was at the very progressive Hornsey - not Hornsby - College of Art (which Ray Davies also attended) that their lecturer landlord was developing this. Plus it is the reason why he bought a house near the college in Crouch End, in which the group formed, lived and practised. It comes down to whether Leonard and the multimedia experiments were an important part of the band's early shows. The article, and the sources, make clear he was. Straw Cat (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, but that's detail about Mike Leonard, not Pink Floyd. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The story of Wish You Were Here

The story of Wish You Were Here, the recent official release by Eagle Rock (which is responsible for Classic Albums: Pink Floyd – The Making of The Dark Side of the Moon). Besides, it has also been aired on TV a few times. The release is, again, official one, with fresh exclusive interviews from all surviving people who had something to with that release back in 75. I think it's worth including in all lists inc. main navigation template, since it's a part of official videography now, as a separate release (not a bonus DVD of any premium box like those from Why Pink Floyd? campaign) and coordinated research. --Henry McClean (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Breathe page move

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts And the horse 16:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd: 1965-1996

Dear all,

I don't know how many times that we have already discussed this issue, but apparently we should discuss this issue every year... The question is: Until which year was Pink Floyd active? Which year can be determined as the final year of Pink Floyd's existence?

In my opinion it's not accurate to determine 1994 as the final year of activity for Pink Floyd (that's namely too early). The band is officially never disbanded after their The Division Bell Tour and so it's difficult to say from which year Pink Floyd was inactive. This situation is comparable with for instance Dire Straits. In 1992, Dire Straits did a final tour. Dire Straits was never officially disbanded. In 1995, Dire Straits released a final live album and that year "1995" is determined as the (unofficial end) of Dire Straits, not 1992.

In 1995, Pink Floyd released and promoted the live album Pulse. The live version of 'Wish You Were Here' was even released as single in 1995. So, in 1995 the band was still active. On January 17th, 1996, Pink Floyd was inducted in the US Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It should be clear that Pink Floyd was not disbanded in 1996. In December 1996, Richard Wright said in an interview: "I am pretty sure, that within the next year we will be playing together in the studio".[1]

It's more acceptable and logical to determine 1996 as the final year of Pink Floyd's musical activity. "The Ultimate Review" and "Inside Pink Floyd" are describing Pink Floyd's activity (1965-1996).[2][3] Christo jones (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

On 6 March 1996, Pink Floyd performed at David Gilmour's 50th birthday party, their last gig until 2003, on Steve O'Rourke funeral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amb1997 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Playing at Gilmour's b-day was not a professional gig billed as Pink Floyd. Is 2003 also an active year due to O'Rourke's funeral? The sources say October 1994 was the last gig billed as Pink Floyd (sans 2005). Beyond that it is WP:OR to extend the active date to 1996 for the sake of Wright's rumours and a b-day jam for Dave. The Beatles considered a reunion before 1975 but we don't say they were active. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Were the Beatles active in 1988, the year of their Rock Hall induction? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The Beatles analogy is a good one, as I suspect the performance at Gilmour's birthday is somewhat analogous to Paul, George, and Ringo performing in 1979 and 1981, at the weddings of Eric Clapton and Ringo Starr, respectively. If the '96 show had been a public one, I would agree with the OP, but based on my limited knowledge of the situation, I'd say extending their active dates to 1996 would be somewhat unrealistic. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

They were billed as Pink Floyd. Check this: http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/concert-dates/1996-tour-dates-concerts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amb1997 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

www.brain-damage.co.uk is not a WP:RS and playing at Dave's b-day party is not a professional gig. Why 1996? What's the justification for extending past 1995? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Per: "In 1995, Pink Floyd released and promoted the live album Pulse", what about 2000 and 2001 when they also released albums? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between the release of a live album (Pulse, 1995) relating to a very recent concert (1994) and the release of a live album relating to a concert of two decades ago... So, in 1995 Pink Floyd surely still existed. They promoted their live album Pulse, following their succesfull tour in 1994. In fact Pink Floyd never officially disbanded after 1995. There was no official announcement (like REM or other bands did). By the way, why is Queen (band) still existing according to Wikipedia? Freddy Mercury is dead and their final album is dating back from 1995 (their tour in 2007 was pictered as "Queen + Paul Rodgers")... It's surely justified to extend Pink Floyd's active period to 1995. Most books or biographies are mentioning an active period, starting in 1965 until 1996 (see for instance the following reliable sources: [4] or [5]). So, I don't see a reason why we should decide something else. Christo jones (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well it sounds like a decent case can be made to extend the active date to 1995, but I am still not seeing why we would go to 1996? Can you please clarify this point Christo. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I remember there were plans to go on with Pink Floyd and something was planned, based on Rick's interviews (I think, from 96). Basically, without any sources, we can consider that Wright's last album used some ideas which he could easily put in next Floyd album...but that's just speculation. Still some sources are needed. Additionally, I remember poster announcing 1995 tour, which didn't take place. Floyd story is really obscured - there have never been any official announcements about disbanding. --Henry McClean (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
When there's no official announcement that a band has broken up, the best we can do is look at their activity, so IMHO the last day of their existence is the last date of their last tour, so my vote is for 1994. If the fact that they released a live album in 1995 is justification to extend the date to that year, wouldn't the same rule apply to Nirvana? Most people, including Wikipedia, list Nirvana as being active through 1994, when Kurt Cobain died, and not through 1995 when they released the "Wishkah" live album. Besides, it's not uncommon for record companies to release records, typically live or compilation albums, after a band ceases operations. Robman94 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Or when an artist dies. Graham Colm (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is Obscred by Clouds so downplayed?

It's mentioned that it was the first Pink Floyd album to break Top 50 and that it is the album that brought them to public attention yet it only gets a little mention and it's not even in the main album section. We all know Pink Floyd fans tends to not like the album so I could see why someone would want to downplay it's importance, but that is simply not Wikipedia's way. Since I actually like the album I'd rather see it be properly represented with the other albums. I know it's a soundtrack, but it's a soundtrack that released singles and had artwork like a regular album and most people see it as one of their studio albums rather than just a soundtrack. In other words it should get at least 1 paragraph in the section describing the albums, not only 1 sentence. Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle and Obscured by Clouds would be a better and more proper heading, no?--Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Top picture

I believe you have the picture at the top of the article mislabeled. You have Waters and Wright reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B005:FA65:0:0:0:103 (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Left-to-right, Wright is on the end. If we were listing them clockwise, your order would be correct. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

Being an encyclopedia with a worldwide viewership, why does this article not have any reference to Pink Floyd being British as opposed to English, or at least added to their origin? They were/are a citizen of the UK first and foremost, not England, so I strongly believe this should be reflected in their article. To make another point this wording excludes every other British citizen in in the United Kingdom from having a rightful connection to them if he is being listed as solely English, which is unfair. 31.221.49.179 (talk)

According to Nicholas Schaffner's Saucerful of Secrets, Nick and Rick are from London, England, while Syd, Roger, and David are from the city of Cambridge, which Wikipedia defines as a town in England. Schaffner wrote, "It was in London ... that the Floyd coalesced and made its mark." He says Cambridge and London are about one hour's drive away from each other. (I don't know.)
It's my (limited) understanding that England is part of the United Kingdom, so by stating someone is English (and it seems clear to me they are), aren't you automatically defining them as a citizen of the UK?
The more confusing part, really, is your claim that "every other British citizen" is "excluded" from "having a rightful connection to them". We all have the same "rightful connection" to them -- as fans. You should understand it most explicitly while listening to lyrics like "Brain Damage", or maybe "Outside the Wall", I don't know, whatever song works best for you. Me, I've never been outside the USA in my life, yet I feel a very strong connection even to songs like "The Post War Dream", a song with lyrics directed very specifically at Margaret Thatcher, concerning British military action in the Falklands. I had no idea what "The yards would still be open on the Clyde" meant, but I remembered it, and loved it as equally as the French horn line behind it. The first time I heard the chorus, with Roger Waters singing "Should we shout / Should we scream" over an intense chord change (F to A, if it matters), that chill, the pleasantly-cold vibration sliding up the back of my neck, I will remember that the rest of my life. I just fail to see how your citizenry gives you anything more special than that. I guess I find the notion slightly appalling, now that I get to it. What would this "rightful connection" feel like?
--Ben Culture (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Intro, second paragraph, last sentence.

In the intro, it is stated that the band "...achieved critical and commercial success with the concept albums The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), Wish You Were Here (1975), Animals (1977), The Wall (1979) and The Final Cut (1983). If we're listing "concept albums" that achieved "critical and commercial" success, each one of those five albums seems relevant. I realize that the Final Cut is a controversial album, but when it was removed today, the edit summary stated that "The Final Cut was not a commercial success." I fail to see how that is. All five of the "concept albums" stated were successful commercially. It debuted at number one in the charts, sold over two million copies in a year (in America, that certifies it as double platinum.) So for what reason should it not be included? Friginator (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It should be included; despite the controversy, it was far from a failure either commercially or artistically. Graham Colm (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Friginator and Graham Colm. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no reason to exclude it, and certainly no reason to edit war to keep it out. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Art rock

Pink Floyd released four conceptual albums between 1973 and 1979 (The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall). Conceptual albums/rock opera are a form of art rock. They're also considered as an art rock band. 83.165.179.164 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that "art rock" covers music not already covered by "progressive" or "psychedelic rock"? If so, how? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
In two words: The Who 83.165.179.164 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, but you had to go to another band to get there. Let me rephrase. Do you think that "art rock" covers music made by Pink Floyd that is not already covered by "progressive" or "psychedelic rock"? FTR, I don't see the harm in adding "art rock", as it is covered in the article body, it just seems a bit redundant with the other cats, but perhaps it isn't. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that they primary genre is art rock, and progressive rock is a subgenre. Bands like Yes, Genesis... are true progressive rock. Pink Floyd is progressive, but not on the same level. Music critic George Starostin considers Pink Floyd art rock. 83.165.179.164 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, that's why I don't have any issue with your suggested addition. As I said, "art rock" is covered and sourced in the article under "genres" so adding it should not create any disputes. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd put Pink Floyd in the Pink Floyd category, and Genesis in the Genesis category, and Yes in the Yes category. Shucks, maybe I can't be a true Wikipedian after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
So, can I put art rock in the infobox? 83.165.179.164 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think what GabeMc is saying is that you can, because it's not wrong, but that it doesn't add much value, because of the (unwritten) Venn Diagram inclusivity of genres. Whereas I'm just bleating on about doing music a disservice by having to always put it into any kind of pigeon hole. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Martinevans123 describes my position well and I equally agree with his reasoning. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you'd have to have an account to add anything to the article, first of all, but secondly, I don't see any reason to do it either. Then again, I'm not a fan of having the genre parameter there at all as it seems to be more trouble than it's worth, not to mention that something as complex as "what hundreds of songs sound like" shouldn't be stuffed into a tiny little infobox. If art rock is really that important, shouldn't it be elaborated on in the article body? Friginator (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox member order

Recently I changed the "Past Members" in the infobox so that the names were alphabetical. GabeMc recently pointed out that the members of a band should be listed in the order that they joined. That makes sense to me, but how do we define membership? When the band became Pink Floyd and started recording, they already had four band members. So should these be listed first (alphabetically) followed by David Gilmour? If we're going to list every member of the group from before they became Pink Floyd, it would read something like this:

Past Members: Nick Mason, Roger Waters, Clive Metcalfe, Keith Noble, Sheilagh Noble, Richard Wright, Bob Klose, Syd Barrett, Chris Dennis, David Gilmour

Which seems incredibly silly. I honestly think that, considering the only member who joined after the group's formation was Gilmour, listing them all alphabetically would be the most clear and efficient way of getting the point across. Does anyone have any thoughts on the subject, because I'm just in favor of listing them alphabetically? Friginator (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that listing the four original members of Pink Floyd alphabetically and adding Gilmour at the end might be the best compromise. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why Not following Discography guidelines?

According to the guidelines , we should have a discography section with main albums (and maybe the tour in a sub section) Is there a specific reason not doing it for this article?

Armelbd (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't this count? It seems to meet the guidelines. Friginator (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The content is great, but the layout is not standart. We should have a main section (heading 2) called "Discography". Then Inside this section, 2 sub sections (heading 3) for studio and tour albums. We already have a lot of sections (15), and I don't really see the point of spreading discography across 2 sections. Armelbd (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: "university students" in lead

Hi,

Can someone change "university students" to just "students" in this sentence from the lead: "Founded in 1965, the band originally consisted of university students..." Syd Barrett wasn't a university student. Camberwell College of Arts was not part of a university in 1965 (it only became a constituent college of the London Institute in 1986 and the London Institute only became a university in 2004). Thanks. 2.25.107.201 (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, the London Polytechnic where the other three were studying architecture was not, at the time, a university - so none of the band were university students. 2.25.107.201 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Done - Ian Dalziel (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo description

"Pink Floyd in January 1968, from the only known photo-shoot of all five members Left to right: Mason, Barrett, Gilmour (seated), Waters and Wright"

There are more photos from the 5-man Pink Floyd, so the description is wrong. Amb1997 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It says "only known photo-shoot", not "only known photo". The description is correct. Graham Colm (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
You're right, sorry. English is not my mother language. Amb1997 (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
No apology needed! Thank you for your interest in improving the article. Graham Colm (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Final Cut

"With Waters, Mason, Wright and Gilmour, Pink Floyd achieved critical and commercial success with the concept albums The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), Wish You Were Here (1975), Animals (1977), The Wall (1979) and The Final Cut (1983)."

The Final Cut wasn't a critical success on the same level as the other four. Amb1997 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

We would need a reference from a reliable source to substantiate this. Graham Colm (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-final-cut-mw0000191427 (3 stars out of 5). Amb1997 (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Amb1997, there is no requirement (TMK) that Allmusic needs to rate all 5 of these albums the exact same in order for us to list them together here at Wikipedia. Also, for context, DSOTM outsold WYWH, which outsold Animals. So while its true that The Final Cut did not outsell the Floyd's previous album (The Wall), neither did three of the other four listed (of the five listed albums, only DSOTM and The Wall outsold their predecessors). According to Fitch 2005, p.103, TFC reached number 1 in at least 5 countries, including the UK (number 6 in the US), and was certified double-platinum in 1997. So that should take care of the commercial side. As for critical acclaim, "Rolling Stone magazine gave the album five stars, with Kurt Loder calling it "a superlative achievement ... art rock's crowning masterpiece".[176]" Allmusic adds: "listeners maintain that this is among Pink Floyd's finest efforts, and it certainly is an achievement of some kind -- there's not only no other Floyd album quite like it, it has no close comparisons to anybody else's work". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding overly wry, I think Rolling Stone calling something a "masterpiece" is pretty much definitive when it comes to "critical success". Friginator (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. It's just a list of albums those members put out that were critically and commercially successful; there is no claim that they are on the same level as one another. Later albums also achieved great success in both manners, but they weren't with Waters. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, this line is referring to concept albums, not just regular ones. Friginator (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"With Waters, Mason, Wright and Gilmour..." This is wrong, because Wright wasn't in The Final Cut. Amb1997 (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Nor was he on The Wall. He also had no writing credit on Animals. If Richard Wright's involvement is going to be a point of contention, we could just leave the band members' names out. In fact, per WP:BB, I'll do that now, as that part is a bit redundant anyway. Friginator (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Rick was in The Wall but he left before it was released. Amb1997 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, Rick did record some parts for The Wall, then he stayed on as a paid musician through the 33 shows. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Pink Floyd were an...

...Shouldn't it be was an? 108.89.16.181 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. In British English bands are treated as plural. But thanks for bringing it here rather than just changing it.--SabreBD (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

pink Floyd

The Pink Floyd page which lists tour dates, incorrectly listed the Sept. 1987 "Momentary Lapse of Reason" concert as taking place in Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia when in reality, that specific concert was in the former JFK Stadium in Philadelphia.

2600:1002:B01B:446F:9FE2:1B7D:9CE1:4B6E (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)MPH

Band members section

I know the band only had 5 members, but it had a lot of lineup changes, being Nick Mason the only constant member. I think that a new band members section should be created (I remember there was one before), with instruments played by each member. Amb1997 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Radio, the table was removed during the FAC as being unsightly and excessive. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the timeline isn't neccesary, but Pink Floyd lasted 30 years with 5 members that played a lot of different instruments, and I didn't find anything ugly or excessive on that section. Amb1997 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I also really liked the member section and chart as well, for what it's worth. I spend a lot of time looking at those in various groups' articles and generally find them quite helpful, saving me the task of combing through bulky prose to get a sense of membership history. CCS81 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
CCS81, how many of the articles of which you speak have passed FAC with one of those charts? From FAC delegate User:GrahamColm: "Already covered in text above, I can't see how this improves this Featured Article". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Pink Floyd's genere

First of all sorry for my bad english (I am from Serbia).So I dont think 2 geners are enough to describe pink floyd genre.Here are the geners that i think will describe them more accurately: Progressive rock, Psyhedelic rock, Hard rock ( a lot of people won't be agree with me here but I have heard a lot of people saying that pink floyd were space rock but not hard rock but this just sounds absurd because they have a lot more hard rock songs and songs with hard rock elements than so called space rock songs for those who dont belive me here are the hard rock songs and the songs with heavy elements by pink floyd: Hard rock songs: Songs with hard rock elements The Nile song On the turning away, your possible pasts Ibiza bar The fletcher memorial home,the gunner's dream One of these days the trial waiting for the worms,hey you, run like hell The Gold it's in the... comfortably numb, one of my turns, the thin ice, money, Childhood's end when you're in, intesrellar overdrive, lucifer sam, dogs( Have a cigar ome parts), corporal clegg, Sheep In the flesh?/In the flesh Young Lust What Shall we do now? Not now John The Dogs of war these are the hard rock songs and i think there are more less space rock songs for instance.So I thik theese hard rock songs are important for the sound of the band therefore hard rock should be mentioned as one of the geners.In the end i think Pink Floyd cover the following geners: Progressive rock, Psyhedelic rock, experimental rock, hard rock, art rock;(other possible geners: Space rock, avant-garde,) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo 1920 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a subsection in this article that specifically deals with Pink Floyd's genre. Isn't that enough? But why is this important? I don't think limiting the genres listed in the infobox hurts anything. It doesn't misinform anyone. In fact, the ideal solution would be to remove the genre parameter from the infobox altogether, so people would stop attempting to change it. Everyone seems to have their own opinion, and as long as that's a point of contention it's going to distract from maintaining a quality article. Friginator (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't just express my opinion, (once again sorry for my English) what am I doing is pointing facts and this facts are importnt and should be at least metioned, when we are talking about an biographical profil of someone this famous.The enumeration of the geners should help the human perception, and in this case it's particularly importnt to define more deept the genre, because we are talking about a band, with sush a difficult and unusual genre to define. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo 1920 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There's already a section in the article that addresses that. Why cram it all into the infobox? Friginator (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the dumb question butwhere is that section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo 1920 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's Pink Floyd#Genres Howicus (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I've allready checked that out and i must say it is not edited after my note.I think there is nothing wrong to add a few more words into the info box, I mean it is explaned more detailed even into the Serbian wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo 1920 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The most efficient time waster I have ever seen on Wikipedia is genre warring. The two currently used are fine and there is no need to go into excess detail in the infobox. If peeps want more detail then they will read the section on genres, or perhaps even the whole article. Maybe we should consider removing the contentious fields altogether from the infobox parameters, so as to save the massive amounts of time we repeatedly waste discussing this. Ivo 1920, the current WP:CONSENSUS is that these two genres cover the others which are subsumptive. Such as art rock, which is really just a sub-genre of progressive rock, which also covers aspects of hard rock. Welcome to Wikipedia BTW, "new user". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Art rock

I think that the genre art rock should and must be added to the band article infobox, since with the release of The Dark Side of the Moon, the band began releasing a series of concept albums which mark a new phase of their work, much more coherent and structured, than the releases before DSOTM. Furthermore, both prog/psych rock were in decline by the end of the 1970s, with the emergence of punk and New Wave music, receiving several revivals during the following decades. Art rock, on the other hand, was never in decline and the releases of Pink Floyd in the 1980s and the 1990s are clearly art rock albums.

A few quotations that Pink Floyd are an art rock band:

  • Larry Starr and Christopher Waterman's American Popular Music defines it as a "Form of rock music that blended elements of rock and European classical music. It included bands such as King Crimson; Emerson, Lake & Palmer; and Pink Floyd."[1]
  • Art rock, eclectic branch of rock music that emerged in the late 1960s and flourished in the early to mid-1970s. The term is sometimes used synonymously with progressive rock, but the latter is best used to describe “intellectual” album-oriented rock by such British bands as Genesis, King Crimson, Pink Floyd, and Yes.[2]
  • Allmusic lists DSOTM, Wish You Were Here and The Wall as the most significant art rock albums.[3]

 Done Since this issue has come up at least three or four times this year, I think its best to just add it so we don't need to spend more time debating this issue. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 July 2013

The opening paragraph states that "After Barrett's departure, Waters became their primary songwriter and lyricist." This is misleading at best. All band members, and especially David Gilmour and Richard Wright, contributed musically to the songwriting through the glory years of Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here. Wright's contributions waned after that, but Gilmour made significant contributions to Animals and The Wall. Likewise, Waters did eventually become the primary lyricist, but this was years after Barrett left. Throughout the LPs Ummagumma, Atom Heart Mother, Meddle, and Obscured by Clouds, Waters, Gilmour and Wright were on equal footing regarding lyrics, and each contributed complete songs written solo. There are no sources needed to confirm this. Just have a look at the writing credits on the various LPs mentioned here. For example, nobody examining the writing credits on Ummagumma or Atom Heart Mother would conclude that Waters was the primary songwriter at that time.

Gilmour wrote a grand total of three songs during the entire time he was in the band with Waters. This is backed-up by numerous sources, but I suspect you are not concerned about that. Anyway, the sources back this statement up in spades. Read Mason 2005, pp. 106–107, 160–161, 265, 278. Mason: "Once Syd left the band in 1968, the onus had fallen on Roger to write the majority of our lyrics."(p.161) Or Blake 2008, pp. 3, 9, 113, 156, 242, 279, 320, 398. Blake: "Waters ... [was] their most prolific songwriter and acknowledged ideas man".(p.3) Blake: "For nearly twenty years [1968-1985], Waters had been the group's dominate songwriter, devising the original concepts ... [and] writing the bulk of the band's lyrics".(p.9) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear GabeMc, there's an important difference between writing the lyrics for a song and writing music. Roger Waters wrote almost all the lyrics for every album and this declares why he is always mentioned in the credits. But David Gilmour has written or co-written the music to a lot of songs: The Narrow Way, Fat Old Sun, Childhood's End, Wish You Were Here, the guitar parts of most of the songs such as Shine On You Crazy Diamond, Comfortably Numb, Young Lust, Run Like Hell etc. Gilmour was surely one of the main songwriters in the band. Roger Waters was the creative genius of the band, but the real talented musicians in the band were Gilmour and Wright. Changing the opening paragraph into "Waters became their primary lyricist" seems more accurate to me.Christo jones (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Fine by me. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Current Band Members... are Mason and Gilmour, why doesn't the page list them that way?

I have been visiting this page for years and thought it was appropriate that the page listed "Current" and "Former" band members at some point. I see the page now lists "Past Band Members," however Pink Floyd has never disbanded and there are two "Current" members, legally: Nick Mason, and David Gilmour. "Past Band Members" should include Bob Klose. It seems this is pretty common knowledge (it would be easy to provide citations proving each of these points, but that it would be subject to discussion seems a bit silly). I'm just curious why the page is lacking these distinctions. Listing when the band has been active or not is helpful but doesn't quite represent the whole story, or is at least not fully accurate. Please note: I haven't made a change on the page and I also realize this may have been discussed before. I found some discussion in the Talk archives but those are not discussions that can be edited in order to continue or bring the discussion back, which is why I am posting this here as a new discussion. Can someone help me understand why it was decided to list the band as a set of "Past Band Members" despite the fact that Pink Floyd still exists legally as a unit comprised of Mason and Gilmour? Why is Bob Klose not listed as a former band member since the only difference between him and other band members, other than longevity in the band, is that he wasn't a member when the band released its first single? I think it would be more correct to list the two current band members and to include Klose in the past members list.--Nm156shown (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Pink Floyd is now defunct: there are no current members. Bob Klose was never in a band called Pink Floyd, he was in a band called the Tea Set. We don't include him for the same reason that we don't include Pete Shotton as a past member of the Beatles. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there an official press release or statement that the band is "defunct" or otherwise disbanded? Could a link be posted and a narrative of that announcement be included in this article? Otherwise, "defunct" seems to be a misnomer for "inactive." If the article could include a statement specifically quoting something to the effect, as you (GabeMC) put it, that "Pink Floyd is now defunct," it would make the article stronger - particularly if it's to reflect your strong views about the band's history, which may be accurate, of course. As recently as 2006, Nick Mason stated the band had not disbanded yet. As recently as 2011, the band and EMI Records were issuing press releases together, e.g., "Pink Floyd and EMI Music, whose association dates from 1967, announce a comprehensive release schedule, to be launched on September 26, 2011, encompassing CDs, DVDs, Blu-ray discs, SACD, an array of digital formats, viral marketing, iPhone Apps and a brand-new single-album ‘Best Of’ collection. The legendary band, who are still one of the most successful and iconic artists of all time, recently signed an agreement with EMI which has allowed the development of a multi-format programme of packages, many containing archive material that has been collated during an extensive process between EMI and Pink Floyd for a range of media formats." (See original release here: http://www.emimusic.com/news/2011/pink-floyd-redefine-their-emi-legacy/). I'm just wondering if other editors would want to contribute an official press release on the band's disbanding - hopefully something after that 2011 press release. That said, there's another press release discussing a lawsuit that seems to imply the band (an existing entity) sued EMI in 2011 - resulting in a contract between EMI and the band that runs through 2016: http://newsok.com/pink-floyd-and-emi-settle-legal-differences/article/feed/232754. There is another press release, regarding "Dark Side of the Moon" from 2013... so any announcement they have disbanded may need to be something more recent, even: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130318006533/en/Rediscover-Dark-Side-Moon. If the band merely exists as a legal unit - wouldn't that legal unit have the right to perform and record again under that name, regardless of whether they have been inactive since 2005's Live 8 reunion? Maybe there should be a section explaining how the band continues to exist as a legal entity, and continue re-releasing statements and materials as a unit though they are "defunct" or disbanded, if such a press release can be added to this page, please?
I can see a debate on whether Klose was a member of the band that became Pink Floyd (which went through a number of names, as you allude to... including changes as subtle as going from "The Pink Floyd Sound" to "The Pink Floyd" and eventually "Pink Floyd," I don't think anyone is contesting your knowledge of the band, which is laudable (hey - if they had a "Barnstar" for Floyd editors... you would be a great candidate for it).--Nm156shown (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
This isn't an article about a franchise. If it were, it would be called "Pink Floyd Music Ltd." This is about the group of musicians--not the legal entity representing them. To my knowledge, nothing in the article explicitly states that the band is "defunct" or has "disbanded". It shouldn't need to be clarified. It should already be abundantly clear to anyone who reads the article that the band is inactive. Friginator (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a Pink Floyd "franchise." This group of musicians was called, is still called, and never ceased to exist as Pink Floyd. Unless you can actually cite something to the contrary it reduces Wikipedia to an unreliable source. While the article doesn't state that the band is "defunct" or "disbanded" the case has been made that there is no listing of current members - which are in fact Nick Mason and David Gilmour - on the basis of the semantics in this discussion. It would strengthen the editorial character of editors on this page and would add credibility if they clarified this point in the article. I, for my part, agree with the more factual view that the band still exists, whether one likes the form that it exists in or not. On a personal level I feel the band would have a weak case for a live performance or a studio recording as a band at this point without Richard Wright and so long as a feud with Roger Waters continues. But the legal entity (or "franchise" as you would call it) existed in the form of two members when they went into the studio in 1986: Nick Mason and David Gilmour were in fact the only members of Pink Floyd, who brought Richard Wright in on a contract basis until other legal issues allowed him to become part of the "franchise." I understand the sense of ownership those who have worked on the page for a long time feel. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the facts. That Nick Mason has stated as recently as 2006 that the band has not disbanded and the authors of this article cannot produce evidence to the contrary says a lot about the passions that go into writing these Wikipedia articles as opposed to the actual factual bases. It's a great article otherwise. But this point deserves to be reconciled. Writing a lot, and flaunting Barnstars only means you write a lot on Wikipedia. Getting it right is probably more important. If you like your article this way, and it floats your boat, than right-on, Buck Rogers! But it's a good thing there is at least a recorded discussion of this factual inaccuracy for those who wish to dig a little bit deeper. Ta Ta! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm156shown (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

nm156shown, you're right. the sarcasm comes through but you're right. http://pinkfloydhyperbase.dk/info/faq.htm#exist: "Pink Floyd does still exist, but..." http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/miscellaneous-articles/pink-floyds-a-momentary-lapse-of-reason-25-years.html: "Nick Mason has stated that Pink Floyd never officially disbanded." a more appropriate note for the article might be that whether the band still exists or not is an "enigma." http://www.pinkfloyd.com/history/biography.php: "So is that the end of the Floyd's road? Do they still exist? Will they perform and record again? It now seems highly unlikely that the surviving members will ever convene under the name chosen by Syd Barrett, nor under it make new music. But who's to say? For at the heart of Pink Floyd, there has always been an enigma..." on 9/28/2011 rolling stone magazine recognized that "technically" david gilmour and nick mason "are still pink floyd", to which nick mason responded "I think it’s one of those things where I’m not quite ready to say it doesn’t exist anymore - http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nick-mason-i-cant-let-go-of-pink-floyd-20110928#ixzz2XZqGaE5W. I would say, if what is TECHNICALLY one half of the band says it still exists ms156show has the facts on their side --ElZorroChapin (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I smell sock trolls and sleeper accounts. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • FTR, this is already properly summarized in the article text:

Though Pink Floyd turned down a contract worth £136 million for a final tour, Waters did not rule out more performances, suggesting it ought to be for a charity event only.[222] However, Gilmour told the Associated Press that a reunion would not happen, stating: "The [Live 8] rehearsals convinced me [that] it wasn't something I wanted to be doing a lot of ... There have been all sorts of farewell moments in people's lives and careers which they have then rescinded, but I think I can fairly categorically say that there won't be a tour or an album again that I take part in. It isn't to do with animosity or anything like that. It's just ... I've been there, I've done it."[225][nb 55]

GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Regarding Bob Klose as a member of Pink Floyd: According to Mason, Blake and Povey, Klose quit a band called the Tea Set during the summer of 1965 and early versions of the name Pink Floyd weren't invented until later that year, during the autumn. Therefore, it would be no more appropriate to add Klose than it would be to add Keith Noble, Clive Metcalfe and Chris Dennis. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

roger waters hasn't been in the band since the 80s. unless he joined Floyd again officially, his views on whether the band disbands or not are just opinion. all the citations you provide are merely instruments proving that the band is not active they don't prove that there has been an official announcement the band has officially disbanded. i'm still gonna side with ms156show on this. rolling stone magazine's quote confirms that officially, and 'technically', there are two current members of the band. it seems that's ms156shows main point, that there is still a valid claim that the band exists (ms156show: are you still interested in chiming in?). gilmour's quotes here, as gabemc has included in his dialog just point to gilmour's lack of desire to carry on with work as a band. that's fine. but it doesn't change the fact ascertained by rolling stone mag and nick mason's response. gilmour never states the band has dissolved officially, only that he thinks there's no activity left in them. one of the problems with wikipedia, and a reason i don't really spend much time editing here is people feel too much ownership over pages to the point where they fight facts to the max (call me a sleeper if you want, dude, but no one has given anyone here authority to present a pink floyd biography with the band's blessing); most u can do is present as many facts as possible, from as many points of view as possible, as objectively as possible. this is a page that could easily fall into a waters vs gilmour battle, for example. surely, a waters fan would argue the band is done, over with and was in the 80s but it doesn't change the fact that there have been lineups following his leaving the band. that may not be the point in dispute but it illustrates an issue with wikipedia. it seems to me the most objective step would be to not get panties in a twist when someone makes a reasonable point, and especially since no one has actually altered your work on the page. calling people sleepers or whatever is defensive. at the end of the day, wikipedia is a hobby for a lot of people but it continues to be an unreliable source. it will only overcome this perception when more than four of us take these discussions on and when the dialog can move toward finding a way to reflect, if necessary, two competing interpretations. ultimately, only people that expend the same amount of time as gabemc on here will be sympathetic to accusations made of others who wish to make contributions. as i read ms156shows first entry, they seem to be polite and interested in the subject. rather than making a terse response that the band is defunct, a constructive dialog on how ms156shows legitimate point could be reflected seems in order, but that includes realizing he's referring to the infobox. i still feel they are right on that. there are current members in the band, like it or not. we will all agree the band is inactive but the rolling stone piece represents good journalism, stating a fact that matches what ms156show has made an effort to bring to light, and politely at that. the most "official" statement you can find from gilmour is on his website: there are no plans for live pink floyd shows. fair enough. but that statement is not the same as 'pink floyd will not perform again because they disbanded in the year x.' again, this is a hobby, not an officially sanctioned thing. that actually begs for greater objectivity and a fuller illustration of viewpoints.--ElZorroChapin (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

only other point i will make is that the bob klose dialog was undisputed. it seems ms156show gave you credit for making your case early in the dialog. y'all need to chillax. it's just a rock band people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElZorroChapin (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Holy verbosity Batman (please see WP:TLDR); reminds me of someone ... anyway, ElZorroChapin, how about you produce a reliable source that specifically states that Pink Floyd are an active band; they need not be deemed officially defunct, we present inactive bands the same as legally dissolved ones. Per Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#current_members: "This field is only relevant for active groups". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

active and inactive are not the point of debate. they are inactive. read the thread here again. the point of dispute is "current" and "past" members. ms156show raises the point, which is verified by rolling stone magazine, that there are two current members in the band, regardless of activity. mason and gilmour. the burden of proof is actually on you and your article. i think it's fair that ms156show makes a case for listing current and past members accordingly. it's evident you want to see the band's current status a specific way. absent a more legitimate, formally published source this is the only way you can put what you feel is the way others should look at the band in some context. so where's your proof the band has disbanded and has no current members, and, really, where do you derive your sense of ownership of this article, robin?--ElZorroChapin (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

According to Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#current_members: Current Members: "This field is only relevant for active groups."(emphasis added) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
According to Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#past_members: Past Members: "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field."(emphasis added) Any questions? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've got one. How much time do you think this discussion has wasted? Friginator (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
More than enough I would say and I believe it is now over ... for the time being anyway. Makes me wonder why this is fun for them, as they are so utterly pathetic in their attempts. Though I'm sure you saw above that I relented and added art rock if for no other reason than to remove one of their time-waster tools. Feel free to revert me of course, since you know how I feel about the matter. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

kids, kids, relax. it's just an article about a rock band. let me take this a step beyond where nm156shown took us (nm156shown, not sure you are reading this but it you are sorry I keep butchering your screen name - just realized it's a queensryche reference - nice!). i will take this a step beyond and say that active and inactive should be the point of debate, and that in turn, "current" and "past members" should reflect a convergence of the most logical reflection of facts under the circumstances: the current members of pink floyd are still mason and gilmour and they are active if we are to look at what they have done most recently and how it is recognized by more significant and credible journalistic and media sources: "Roger Waters, David Gilmour and Nick Mason are members of Pink Floyd which recently released the 40th anniversary edition of Dark Side of the Moon." http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/23/pink-floyd-royalties-pandora-column/2447445/. "The surviving members of Pink Floyd reunited onstage tonight at London's 02 Arena during a stop on Roger Waters' Wall tour" http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/pink-floyd-reunite-at-roger-waters-show-in-london-20110512#ixzz2XfqpBCiQ. this reunion took place within a current tour, which is about to enter its second leg, meaning this is a current tour and not some footnote from the past. i don't have questions, i am challenging your sense of entitlement here and the ability you seem to lack to ponder points you don't agree with. here's what's clear: you like to look at the current state of the band through your lens. you see the band as inactive (the preponderance of the evidence is that there is band activity, no matter how limited, even if that was not the point that was being pondered and even if i actually disagree with nm156shown on this point). remember: i am agreeing with nm156showns position on the "current members" issue and acknowledge that his view is that the activity level of the band was not his point of debate. if we want to qualify current membership based on activity, a usatoday piece that acknowledges the band as the authors of an opinion piece and as having recently re-released dsotm is evidence of activity. mason and gilmour have the legal rights to the band and behave accordingly, acknowledging publishing rights that waters retained and acting in tandem. what i see here is part of a larger problem though (see: "Wikipedia appears to have a strange undefined organisational structure, or lack thereof. It seems to be run by some Mad Max-like community stuck in the middle of the desert. Contributors have to submit to many editors that follow meticulously baroque editorial guidelines, which are imposed in an inconsistent fashion." "Wikpedia is not a community conducive to creating content. The site is open to abuse. The number of times I have had to edit my own Wikipedia page because of some blatant libel, I lose count. The site is probably edited by 14-year-olds." http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/wikipedia-losing-contributors-fatal-flaw-the-community-editors/54144. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-17/business/37795767_1_wikipedia-editors-web-site-direct-dialogue). gabemc, if you're point is to make sure the article reflects your personal opinions, no one is as hellbent on this as you are because ultimately everyone looks at wikipedia content with a great deal of skepticism and few invest the time that you do in it. for that matter, no one has tried to edit your pink floyd article, there are two of us pointing out what is ultimately an error in your article. given your passion for writing and investing yourself in wikipedia, you should take the suggestions given by others a bit more seriously if there's reason to - and there is. that you feel there's no point to consider here and that you merely advocate to preserve your position on any of these issues rather than to entertain what might make the article stronger is evidence of the concerns these articles express. it's very clear you derive a great deal of personal pleasure and maybe other things from writing here. that's great that you do. but you would be a much better editor if you actually took the time to treat others with a more objective approach. you seem to be more of an author than an editor. the latter would ask questions and make sense of a point he or she might disagree with in order to reach the most objective consensus. frankly. i don't blame nm156shown for putting their time into something else, since they are clearly disinterested in this dialog at this point(you out there, nm156shown?). but seriously, go listen to some floyd and take it easy--ElZorroChapin (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Sometimes less is more, like maybe a penny instead of a dollar? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
well, you can always edit on twitter.--ElZorroChapin (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

The question here is whether the current listing of current and/or past members is reflective of the following Wikipedia guidelines:

According to Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#current_members: Current Members: "This field is only relevant for active groups."
According to Template:Infobox musical artist/doc#past_members: Past Members: "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "current_members" field."

Support listing all members as past

  1. Obviously, and per above. Pink Floyd is an inactive band and we should list all members in the "Past_members" field per Template:Infobox musical artist/doc. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  2. Per Gabe. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 09:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  3. I completely agree with Gabe. Each member has equally played their part in making the band what they are today. Listing them in the "Past members" section" would be the correct thing to do. -- CassiantoTalk 11:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  4. Pink Floyd is a past band, so all its members are past members. Rothorpe (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  5. Completely agree. Per Gabe and/or common sense. Or both. Friginator (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  6. No reliable source, at least as far as I have seen, supports the idea that the group is currently in existence. The circumstances of their dissolution are well-known publicly, so I can't see any reason to treat them as anything other than a defunct band. This would include utilising the "Past members" field of the infobox template in the way in which it's supposed to be used. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  7. I would agree, all members are past. If the band decides to re-group for another album or tour then those would be the 'current' members (and who knows who they might be). So for now all should be listed as past members in the info box which is summary, at a glance format. In the body of the article one could elaborate on who was left standing, so to speak when the band finally dissolved, broke up etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support listing Mason and Gilmour as current and Waters, Wright and Barrett as past

sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

:# wouldn't it be more objective to state: "the question is whether the current listing of current and/or past members is reflective of these Wikipedia guidelines." but the effort is appreciated and it's definitely an improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElZorroChapin (talk • contribs) 06:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC) striken !vote from confirmed sock GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

:# Per me. What Zorro said. That would be more objective a question. I'll have to agree with Zorro on whether the band is active. Thanks for making this point. Who really reads this stuff anyway? It will probably stay as is until someone who is bored enough, and lacking things to do in real life, puts more time than the current authors into this article. No big deal. The world has bigger problems. And probably better resources, as Zorro points out. --Nm156shown (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC) striken !vote from confirmed sock GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Extended discussion

sock. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

the entire quote: "So is that the end of the Floyd's road? Do they still exist? Will they perform and record again? It now seems highly unlikely that the surviving members will ever convene under the name chosen by Syd Barrett, nor under it make new music. But who's to say? For at the heart of Pink Floyd, there has always been an enigma..." it's actually quoted in the thread. who's to say? nick mason said as recently as 2011 that the band has not disbanded. there is no official statement to that effect. the band just wrote an op-ed column in the USAToday with roger waters. mason and gilmour joined waters during this wall tour that is about to enter a second leg. i just wouldn't want to correct mason or speak for the band on this issue and would stick to what can be recorded as fact, otherwise, if we apply the 'who's to say', i would have to side with mason or any official statement to the contrary which seems to be the only thing that would trump mason's statement given that it most conforms with legal fact and with most recent activity.--ElZorroChapin (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the end of that quote is a poetical-rhetorical question, not a definitive answer. Also, FYI the enigma thing is a reference to a record company hoax related to the Division Bell tour. It was a publicity stunt to generate buzz and it absolutely does not go back further than their final album. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Timeline

Please can you add a Timeline about the band members (like on every other band article)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.102.130 (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed at least 3 or 4 times this year and the long-standing consensus (since its FA promotion last year) is that those types of timelines are unnecessary and perhaps even inappropriate for an FA. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Barbican 2006 concert - the last ever Pink Floys show

Sorry, new to this wiki thing (well altered something 6 years ago but forgotten how to change things now!). Anyway, why is there no mention of the Barbican 2006 gig? Very strange not to mention this considering it was their final ever Pink Floyd public show!Riddleben (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think that they were billed as Pink Floyd for that show? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Well I was at the show so I do have an idea. They were billed on screen as David Gilmour, Rick Wright and Nick Mason, but Joe Boyd introduced them as Pink Floyd - which is what they were, considering they were the only current members of the band. Earlier in the concert Roger Waters played solo. As I say, this has to be seen as the last ever public performance by Pink Floyd, but even if not then the concert should at least be recorded here in some detail. How does one go about adding something?Riddleben (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any WP:RSs that support this claim that they were billed that night as Pink Floyd? Otherwise, it sounds like WP:OR to me. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
What evidence do you need? If you youtube barbican 2006 pink floyd you will see that Joe Boyd introduces them as Pink Floyd. They were not billed so in the programme though. They played Arnoly Layne (Rick Wright singing) and then Bike at the end, joined by all the other acts of the night (though not Roger Waters). I can scan the programme for you if you like - was the Syd Barrett's Madcap's Last Night gig. Even if they were not officially billed as Pink Floyd, it was David Gilmour, Nick Mason, Jon Carin (I think) and Rick Wright. The bassist was that of Oasis. Surely this counts as a Pink Floyd set, but even if not then surely the gig is worth a mention! Not only was it the last ever public PF performance, but it was the last time the 4 players appearded on the same stage, but not all together.Riddleben (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not asking for evidence, I'm asking for a WP:RS. Please read WP:OR. I am not aware of any reliable source that states this was a performance by Pink Floyd. Gilmour and Mason joined Waters for two songs during The Wall tour, but that wasn't billed as Pink Floyd even though all three were on stage together. I think this piece of info is better suited at David Gilmour, not Pink Floyd. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Riddleben and welcome to the project. I appreciate your desire to improve this article and to add info that you feel is missing. I also commend you for coming to the talk page and for your willingness to collaborate and ask for advice. Having said all that I have to agree with GabeMc that even though we may have personal experience of an event WP requires that content be based on a "reliable secondary source" like a newspaper, book or magazine report. It's WP's way of staying objective and staying away from personal experience. If you need any further help with this or any other WP projects or issue you may encounter I'd be happy to help. Just leave a message on my talk page. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can give you a number of examples of reliable and unbiased proof - http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/concerts/roger-waters-and-pink-floyd-barbican-hall-london-may-10th.html http://dannycliffordblog.blogspot.co.uk/2007/05/pink-floyd-at-barbican-london.html http://www.songkick.com/concerts/989927-pink-floyd-at-barbican-centre http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6643779.stm and lots of youtube clips of the eventful night. Just do a google search and you can find lots more reliable sources other than the BBC, a top rock photographer, Songkick or the number 1 Pink Floyd fan site! Therefore even if you don't class this as a PF gig or full/part reunion, there is no way in a million years you could say this was not a significant event in the recent PF history - far more significant than the Hope Foundation or O2 gigs. It was the last time the post Waters PF line up played together and also a time when Roger Waters appeared at the same event. It was also all in aid of the recently departed Syd Barrett. I have to say that this event was added to WP back in 2008 but someone has thought it wise to then scrub it from history! I don't know what else to add but I am perplexed how this would be a DG link rather than a PF one!Riddleben (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

  • With the exception of the BBC, none of the above sources are reliable and the BBC cite does not actually state that the show was an official reunion. They often take journalistic license that we don't here at Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS. This was at best a Gilmour concert where he was joined by the other Floyds, but not a performance by Pink Floyd. Also, the BBC have it wrong in that Wright and Waters have not been official members of the band since 1979 and 1985 respectively. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WHAT? Not reliable? As I say even if you don't want to see this as a PF gig then only an idiot would say this does not deserve recognition on a PF page! I really don't wish to be rude but I get the feeling you think this page is your own site. You seem closed to facts and perhaps a control freak. I can already see that you are not going to add this event to the page so I can only guess what your real reasons for this are (perhaps you missed the gig and are therefore jealous?, perhaps you just like to be difficult?)I have read some of your responses to others and you are equally rude and difficult there, I'm afraid to say. I also see that people are asking for others to have control of this page! A David Gilmour concert? Ha ha, are you really a PF fan? Do you know anything about Pink Floyd? The last time the 4 members appeared at the same concert, the last time the post waters PF played at concert, and in you could say the last time PF ever played again - but you don't think it's worthy of a mention on Wikipedia? Oh dear! Riddleben (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Brain Damage is a fansite and is therefore unreliable. Danny Clifford's blog is also unreliable as is Songkick, but then you never were any good at sourcing were you? You are a sock troll, IMO. Randio, get a life! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sock troll? Had to google that one. Guess that's an American term. No, not a troll. Just cannot understand stupid and belligerent people who ignore common sense. Just a shame that people will never be able to research and learn about certain significant events in Pink Floyd's history. Riddleben (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would lean toward including a mention of this show (although certainly not as Pink Floyd) in the article. If Gilmour playing two songs at one of Roger's shows merits inclusion in the lede, including a sentence or two about the 2006 show doesn't seem unreasonable. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, this text string has been in the article since it passed FA last year: "On 10 May 2007, both Waters and Pink Floyd performed during a Barrett tribute concert at the Barbican Centre in London. Pink Floyd performed the Barrett compositions, "Bike" and "Arnold Layne", at the event organised by Joe Boyd and Nick Laird-Clowes.[13]" GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't know how I missed that. Should that text be amended? As you correctly pointed out, that performance was not billed as "Pink Floyd". Joefromrandb (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the BBC says that both Pink Floyd and Waters played, but my original point to "new" user Riddleben was that it wasn't a full-on reunion, which the BBC also agrees with. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It just seems unnecessarily confusing, especially since the info box only lists the 2005 reunion. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, we report what the sources say, not what we think. The source says Pink Floyd played at the concert so that's what we write. The 2005 show was a reunion because Floyd played with Waters, that's the distinction. I'll add 2007 to the infobox so as to minimize confusion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd really rather you didn't. That will only serve to compound the error. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Does this edit satisfy your concerns? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely! Joefromrandb (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this page for quite a while now and think this will be reaching a point soon where a number of editors will probably want to do something about GabeMC's approach, sense of ownership over the article, and impetuous effort to write the history of this band as she sees fit. GabeMC has been allowed far too much autonomy over this article.

This is not the first time the issue of adding the history of Pink Floyd (post-Waters) accurately has come up. Pink Floyd never split. You can include information regarding this debate in the article but responsible editors wouldn't just be filtering and relentlessly pushing for their view to be the only one reflected in it. Live 8 was billed as "Pink Floyd and Roger Waters," and each time the band has played in its Gilmour version (Gilmour, Wright, Mason... or since Wright's passing Gilmour and Mason), it must at least be acknowledged that these can be recognized as *Pink Floyd* appearances. Such is the case with Barbican.

The modus operandi here is thus: someone brings this issue up (and it happens again and again) and GabeMC responds defensively, usually citing a Wiki short-cut to legitimize her request for a citation; once citations are provided, no matter how credible, she will dispute the viability of said citation even when she has used the same source to support other items on this page or others she has edited. Despite this absurdity, a number of editors who sympathize with her (and who have in some cases even come to good terms with her after having these disputes with her on other articles) will come in her defense in the guise of "fairness," taking a "good cop" stance. The debate then goes on and on, and, at the end of the day, despite suggestions that others "get a life" she seems to be the one that can expend the time and effort to keep editing or limiting this page to her very subjective view of this band's history.

Given the magnitude of this band, and her continued efforts to cast anyone who disagrees with her as a "sock puppet," it may be time for a number of editors who have disagreed with her and her minions over quite an extended period of time to really do something about this and get Wikipedia to preserve the integrity of its effort to strive for factual and objective representations of these subject matters. In that spirit - if there is any editor left on this page that is truly objective and is as fed up with this, I think it's time to begin a dialog about how to get arbitration on this.

Riddleben, you are correct. GabeMC - no matter how you want to see it, this is not a personal page or blog. You have a duty to represent the facts objectively here - at a minimum, you must illustrate that there's a "debate" about whether or not a gig like Barbican was in fact a Floyd gig. Technically, it was - at the very least you need to represent this truthfully or present your own citations specifically stating that this or other similar events were not attended and did not see a performance by what constitutes "PINK FLOYD." Fundamentally, you are not at the very least informing readers of the two opinions that *may* exist on this subject matter - the weight of which actually falls in favor of the point Riddleben has made. For my part, I think you grossly overestimate the importance of what you are doing here: it's gotten to a point where you really feel you have much wider latitude as an editor than you actually do. This has gone on for quite a while in this article and this is only the beginning of a process of making sure you're called out on this - because no one else is doing it: to those of you who have been supportive of GabeMC, you should really consider your own reputations as editors, review this page and its history, objectively assess GabeMC's presence and autonomy on it, and ask yourselves whether you're doing a service to Wikipedia or to GabeMC.--Ikeepwatching (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey sock troll, did you catch the part where I say that the concert is already mentioned in the text and has been for years? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all, let's keep it professional: as you would in a dialog with editors from any other professional publication, which you have some limited experience with. Sure, it's there, but the issue here is you need to acknowledge, at the very least, that there's a debate about whether or not this was a "Pink Floyd" performance. Also, I think you need to read a bit more about Richard Wright and how his presence in the band was defined over time. The issue here is that as talented and as passionate as you might be about Pink Floyd, you still need to behave objectively here. This is not your article. You're as privileged as others to edit here. I don't really care if you think Pink Floyd ended when Barrett, Waters, or anyone else left. But you owe it to Wikipedia and its readers to at least present both sides of a view in the page. A BBC citation is far more appropriate a source than your personal opinion, which is what this article is now replete with. I am not opposed to you expending your time here (and really, are you on this thing 24/7? Take a break!) but you need to come to grips with the fact that this piece ought not to reflect your whims or opinions of the band. If you have citations to the contrary in any of these debates, then by all means - include your viewpoint and support it - but that doesn't entitle you to question whether BBC is a reliable news source when it supports a view you don't agree with and to then exclude - I mean, this is bonkers: other responsible editors must really see this and speak out. GabeMC, all you need to do is acknowledge both sides. Remember, editing here is not the same as writing opinion pieces for a newspaper. Capisce?--Ikeepwatching (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Please carefully re-read this thread. You will see that it was User:Joefromrandb that insisted that the existing wording be changed so as to avoid stating that the gig featured a performance by Pink Floyd. Also, if you carefully re-read the BBC article, which states: "Pink Floyd's stars have performed at a concert in honour of their ex-bandmate Syd Barrett, who died last year - but stopped short of a full reunion ... Gilmour was joined by original drummer Nick Mason and keyboard player Rick Wright, while Waters played solo." The article does not explicitly state that the show included a performance by Pink Floyd, and although the headline does seem to imply that: "Floyd play at Barrett tribute gig", I suggest that the headline is constructed in an effort to grab attention, not to accurately explain history. Can you provide any other WP:RSs that state that this was a performance by Pink Floyd? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't exactly "insist", though I did appreciate it. My main reasoning was that while the source said "Pink Floyd", they didn't actually play as Pink Floyd. Therefore, referring to the trio as "Pink Floyd" was simply the opinion of the writer. If we were to call it "Pink Floyd" in this article, per WP:RSOPINION, we would have to make that clear. I thought Gabe's change to "Gilmour, Mason, and Wright" was the perfect solution to this. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I hear you GabeMC. I just think it might be fair to include something explaining that perhaps it's not entirely clear whether the band has really, officially, disbanded or not. I think just a minor note on that would be fair - and I think that in some degree relates to the query about a timeline for band-members.--Ikeepwatching (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
While no one owns the article, someone who just keeps popping up here, using multiple accounts (that would be you), can't expect his views to be given the same weight as someone who has volunteered many hours of researching, collaboration, and editing to make this a featured article (that would be Gabe). Joefromrandb (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As I stated: kudos to GabeMC for the time she devotes to this and many other articles. As you state, joefromrandb, no one particular person owns the article. The weight of the contribution to an article should be based on objectivity. It's not the first time this issue has come up. It has to at least be acknowledged that there are competing viewpoints on whether or not the band still exists. I think the more legitimate view here is that the band (band-members) has (have) been ambiguous about the status of the band. Again, my view is married to neither interpretation of what the status of the band is - but to presenting a narrative that would inform a reader that there's disagreement, at a bare minimum.--Ikeepwatching (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Socks and SPA's are rarely met with "objectivity". Joefromrandb (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
But, would it be objective to include information about difference of opinion on this point of whether the band still exists and explaining how some feel Barbican featured Pink Floyd and not merely its last "official" members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B101:DBB4:B1F7:23B2:4309:240 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
No. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks IKeepwatching. To be honest I gave up in the end, though the Barbican gig was mentioned eventually so I kind of did get my way - though not without a fight. Those of us who were at the Barbican gig KNOW it was a Pink Floyd performance at the end as Richard Wright, David Gilmour and Nick Mason were still official members of Pink Floyd at that time, and they all played together as soon as Joe Boyd introduced them as Pink Floyd. The reason the BBC say it stopped short of a full Floyd reunion is probably because the journalist was unaware that they had been performing as a three piece set for a good 10 years and was clouded by the current talk of Pink Floyd only being able to reform if Roger Waters was to perform with them again. We shall overcome!Riddleben —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
RB, 1) the Barbican gig was mentioned in the article long before you created your account, in fact it was in the article at least since it was promoted to FA last year (look at note #56). 2) Richard Wright was NEVER allowed back into Pink Floyd as an official member, you have that wrong. Dave and Nick never let Rick back in the band; he played with Floyd as a paid musician just like Guy Pratt. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
GabeMC - Good God, I can confidently tell you that this is nonsense even without googleing it. RW became an official member of PF again before Division Bell albumn. Anyone - new Editor please?!!!Riddleben —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey Riddleben, read Blake, 2008, pages 354–355: "Despite his involvement [in the Division Bell album], Wright was still not contractually a full member of the band; something that clearly rankled. 'It came very close to a point where I wasn't go to do the album,' [Wright] said in 2000, 'because I didn't feel that what we'd agreed was fair.'" (Blake, 2008, pp.354–355) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
According to Mason: "There was some confusion over Rick's position within the band. When David and I first wanted to talk to Rick we discovered that buried in his leaving agreement from 1981 was a clause that prevented him rejoining the group." (Mason, 2005, p.282 in the US edition and 289 in the UK version) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Riddleben, do I count as a "new editor"? Because, for the record, I think this is all nonsense and that this discussion should have ended quite a while back. I have to agree with Gabe on everything he's said, due in no small part to the fact that he's backing up everything with both personal quotes and published sources. Maybe you should try googling it. Friginator (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Friginator, you count as just another person, that's all. If you agree with everything GabeMc says then you don't know much about PF. Why not email David Gilmour and ask if Rick Wright was ever a member of PF after 1981? What do you think his reply would be? There are a million and one sources that state Rick Wright was a member of the band during and after the Division Bell album. As for the Barbican concert, well think what you like but the three current members of the band played Arnold Layne together. Most people would think that constitutes a pink floyd performance. If you feel it needed Roger Waters to complete this line up then you obviously do not recognise PF as an outfit post 1985! So pleased to have been at the last performance by Pink Floyd in my home city - London! Riddleben —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you implying that you have David Gilmour's email address? Because if so, I'd absolutely love to talk to him. Friginator (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Richard Wright was an official member of the band after The Division Bell.

I don't know if he was or not an official member when the album was recorded (he is credited as a member though), but I've found an interview with him from 1996 on which he says that he was (at least when he was interviewed). http://www.pink-floyd.org/artint/105.htm However, at that point, the band was no longer active so he officialy joined them when they were on hiatus. Amb1997 (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No, he officially joined the band after "A Momentary Lapse Of Reason" was completed, having been a session musician on the album itself. 31.52.194.151 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Members section of Infobox

Just to point out, according to the official Wikipedia infobox guidelines (as seen at Template:Infobox musical artist), members should first be listed in order of joining the band before being alphabetized. Henceforth, David Gilmour should be listed last as he was the only band member who was not there at the beginning. 31.52.194.151 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's make their 2006 dissolution clear in the lead

I recently added this passage in an effort to make clear in the lead that the band has been inactive since 2006:

In 2006, Gilmour was interviewed for an article printed in the Italian newspaper ''[[la Repubblica]]'' that declared: "The news is official. Pink Floyd the brand is dissolved, finished, definitely deceased."<ref name="LR06"/> When asked about their future, Gilmour responded: "The band? It's over ... I've had enough. I'm 60 years old ... [and] it is much more comfortable to work on my own."<ref name="LR06"/> Since then, both he and Waters have repeatedly insisted that they have no plans to reunite with the surviving former members.

I like this because without it, the lead does not make it clear that Pink Floyd has been inactive since 2006. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It does seem out of place and because we dont mention this later its has to be sourced in the lead (where we hope not to have references because the lead summarizes the article) ...would be better to have the quote in the present section with mention in the lead that the band is dead as of 2006....then our readers can see more in detail with links latter in the right section. I personally hate quotes of any kind when we can paraphrase them with that same meaning. -- Moxy (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, we have to cite in-line even if a quote appears later (as these do). I am hesitant to paraphrase because the material is so contentious. At the least we would have to state that Gilmour declared the band "over", which would still necessitate an inline citation. I'm not opposed to a paraphrase, but we should be cautious what we present in the voice of Wikipedia. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Moxy, what do you think of this edit? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Nice - the problem looks  Fixed to me...as per the norm GabeMc you have jumped in with both feet and solve the problem. -- Moxy (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

BRD

This has become a pissing match. Take your personal issues to your talk pages or to WP:ANI, please. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Briefly: regarding the "edit war" going on wherein BRD is being cited, please note that "BRD" by itself is not an appropriate rationale for reverting. The reversion needs to be explained in greater detail per the BRD essay. Specifically:

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. It is not the intention of WP:BRD to encourage reverting. When reverting, be clear of your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.

To use BRD as a rationale for reverting an edit you disagree with, you have to explain why you're reverting and why the edit you're reverting doesn't improve the article. That's a critical part of BRD itself. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

FTR, this was the bold edit and this was the revert. At that point, the onus was on The Master to take this up at talk, not edit war and recruit friends to help him edit war. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding the recent addition: "According to Gilmour in an interview with journalist [[Nick Kent]], the other members of Pink Floyd then approached Laing with a tape of a Barrett conversation; Laing declared him 'incurable'".<ref>Kent, Nick. Syd Barrett feature. ''New Musical Express'', 13 April 1974.</ref><ref>Schaffner 2005, pp. 106–107</ref>
  • 1) Why would a respected doctor diagnose someone whom he had never examined? A) He wouldn't, but B) even if he did, we wouldn't consider that notable enough for inclusion here, since Laing never met Barrett, which renders his alleged diagnosis moot.
  • 2) The Pink Floyd article already goes into enough detail regarding Barrett's mental health. Additional details should be added to the Syd Barrett article, not the Pink Floyd article.
  • 3) This sounds like Gilmour heard from somebody that Laing said Barrett was incurable, which is hearsay that is not backed-up by multiple reliable sources.
  • 4) The cited source says that someone played the tape to Laing, but it does not actually say it was the other members of Floyd. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

::The content added is not really about the esteemed doctor. Its about Gilmore's use of the doctor to in some way legitimise the rest of the bands actions. It could be better worded. Perhaps something like "In an interview with journalist Nick Kent, Gilmour said that the other members of Pink Floyd then approached Laing with a tape of a Barrett conversation, after which Laing declared him 'incurable'". Atlas-maker (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)I'm afraid the comments I was replying have been changed after my reply was originally written and so it takes my comments out of context, so I have struck the original text. Atlas-maker (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, but the poor wording is not really the main issue, which is that Laing never even met Barrett, and Gilmour is repeating an unsupported story. At best we would have to state that this is according to Gilmour, which is again, hearsay that does not belong in a FA in the first place. Why would we include a hearsay diagnosis from a doctor who never even met Barrett? The story is dubious to say the least. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is a poor addition to the article. It sounds like it was based on a flippant remark by the doctor (not a diagnosis) along the lines of "That guy sounds incurable!" that Gilmour decided to refer to in an interview. It adds completely undue weight to this doctor's remark, and it adds way too much detail about Barrett's mental health for this article. --Laser brain (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
A one-word diagnosis (as presented in the edit) is insufficient to allow the reader to make any sort of determination. I wouldn't include it, as for all we know, he may have said "incurable romantic" or "incurable socialist" or "incurable idiot". Parrot of Doom 21:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the interview took place 40 years ago; if no reliable source has picked it up since then it is probably not generally regarded as reliable and does not merit inclusion here. That's not any old "good doctor", by the way, it's R.D. Laing who was probably the most talked-about psychiatrist in Britain at the time. On a different note, why is there no mention in this article of the Three Games for May concert in the Queen Elizabeth Hall in May 1967 (I no longer recall if it was exactly on the 3 May), which introduced quadraphonic surround sound and put the Floyd on the map at the same time? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
For use of the Azimuth, see the section on Sonic Experimentation . GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what The Master's edit adds to what is already in the article, if anything it belongs on the Barrett article. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
My first thought is who are we to question even a "backyard" doctor's diagnosis (assuming it's a real doctor). After further thought, as mentioned by GabeMc, Barrett's mental state(s) are well covered within floyd's page, which leads me to only one solution, if this information needs to be included it should be on Barrett's page (another WP:RS wouldn't hurt). Mlpearc (open channel) 02:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Laing wasn't in the business of declaring people incurable, so if he made the remark it would have been flippant. Rothorpe (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is likely the incident that Gilmour was thinking of. Chinese whispers from "We took Syd to see Laing, but Syd refused to go in" to "We took a tape to Laing, and he declared Syd incurable". However, whatever it was, the incident properly belongs in the Syd article rather than this one. SilkTork' ✔Tea time 10:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • User:‎Balph Eubank, User:The Master, and User:Atlas-maker, can I assume that the consensus is now clearly against inclusion of the dubious diagnosis? Since only one of the three of you has made any attempt to discuss this here, and that apparent support was striken, I will plan on removing the contested addition later today. Discussion is one third of BRD; at this point all you've done is revert. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, the mob has spoken. So the question now is, will GabeMc read the essay he seems to love so much? Also, your claims or "recruiting friends" are laughable, especially since it seems you're a complete hypocrite in that regard. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I am delighted that the community seems to have come to a consensus with regard to the inclusion (or not) of this claim. I made clear earlier my personal opinion, but if the wider community disagrees with me I'm happy to go with the consensus. For the avoidance of doubt, I struck my previous contribution as it was in response to a particular contribution by user:GabeMc which was subsequently refactored by him/her. That's the only reason I withdrew. Atlas-maker (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The Master, I was not "recruited" and GabeMc did not ask me to comment here. I resent the implication, frankly. --Laser brain (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually LB, I think The Master was referring to Gabe's claims that The Master recruited me. But I may be wrong. Atlas-maker (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The Master, I sincerely apologize for suggesting that you recruited people to help you edit war, but in four years on Wikipedia not once have I ever seen three people gang-up to prevent the reversion of an obviously bad edit. I perhaps wrongly assumed that Balph and Atlas were your wikibuddies and they intended to revert my reversion so as to have a numerical majority defending the bad edit. I am sure it's just a coincidence, or perhaps Balph and Atlas have a bone to pick with me independent of this dispute, or perhaps they just like the drama. Either way, this dispute could have been avoided had you carefully read the cited source. As far as BRD, I am still dumbfounded by your position, which seems to be that anyone who wants to add or change an article can do so at will and the onus is on those against the inclusion to make a case to keep it out. This is not the way I understand the project to work. If I want to go to an article and make a contentious change then I must persuade the editors there to include it, not the other way around. Anyway, as Atlas says, BRD is only an essay, so what's the point in forcing your interpretation of it's meaning when you also say it's nothing that needs to be followed? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, I find it more than a little interesting that you were blocked on your first day of editing for abusing multiple accounts, also known as sock puppetry. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, FTR, this was the bold edit and this was the revert. At that point, the onus was on The Master to take this up at talk, right? Do I really have this backwards? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The idea that everything would have been rosy if we had all done exactly what you wanted us to do may we'll be true but it's not realistic. This is Wikipedia not Gabopedia. You don't run the place. It's not up to you to decide how everyone else should behave. It's a collaborative editing environment. Since you like the headlines of WP:BRD, you really need to familiarise yourself with the rest of the editing process such as WP:REV, another fine essay, especially WP:REVEXP. The last one explains exactly what should have happened. The Master made his change, you made the revert and you explained the reasoning behind your revert. If you had done that, we wouldn't be here now. I certainly wouldn't have reverted you. You don't own the article. You don't rule Wikipedia. If you behaved very slightly differently and explained your actions, very few people would have questioned your actions. But you didn't. You tried to order the rest us to sing your tune and it doesn't work like that.
For the record, your 'outing' of The Master's block record us highly inappropriate on an article talk page. Atlas-maker (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Your continued beating of the ownership drum is both pathetic and lame, but also very familiar; it's a fairly common Wikipedia smear tactic. Like I said before, I would have reverted the obviously bad edit even if I wasn't a leading contributor here, so your continued accusations that I only reverted from a feeling of ownership is absolutely ridiculous. I looked at your edit history and I see many, many examples where you arbitrarily reverted someone without discussion; I can dig up the diffs if you like, but anyway, this dispute is decidedly over, so I won't comment on this again and you'll have to find another good cause. The edit was clearly a bad one, and any intelligent person who actually checked the cited source would not have edit warred to defend it's inclusion, so good job with your editorial discretion.GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Look who is talking about smear tactics. You accused myself and Atlas of meatpuppetry, accused Master of recruiting meatpuppets, then dug back through his edit history to look for dirt to accuse him of sockpuppetry. I agree that your behavior here is highly hypocritical. Also, yes, you are not reading a crucial part of BRD, which I posted above. I'm not sure if you're just obtuse or playing the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT game, but either way, BRD doesn't give you free reign to revert something just because you don't like it, you have to give a valid reason for the reversion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page when the reversion is made. Examples of a valid reason could be "does not improve the article", or "poor citation" or "uncited", or "dubious", or any other of a number of other rationales. Your arrogant, dismissive attitude towards three of your follow editors here is telling. No wonder people are leaving Wikipedia. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you guys think you could take this elsewhere? The content matter has been decided, and I'm tired of having my watchlist light up for this protracted discussion about BRD and user behavior that now has nothing to do with Pink Floyd. If you have a problem with GabeMc's behavior, collect your information and take it to RFC/U, please. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2013 (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.

In what order should we list the past members?

User:Bright Darkness, re this edit with the summary: "Order of joining is rather contentious as the band was in fact formed collectively by the four students." According to Template:Infobox musical artist#past_members: "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names." Mason and Waters were the first Floyd's to play music together, followed by Wright, then Barrett, then Gilmour. In your above edit you've changed the order so that one of the first members to join is listed last and the last member to join is listed second. I prefer the way it was before your edit, with Mason, Waters, Wright, Barrett, then Gilmour last, since he was the last to join. Also, there is hidden text in the infobox that asks: <!-- Please discuss at that talk page before changing this. -->. So, I hope you don't mind if I revert to the long-standing version while we discuss this. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The template style should be followed, I think. If there is dispute about the order in which band members joined, we should refer to the sources in use in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Pink Floyd was not founded by Mason and Waters, who had only contemplated the project of a band. Pink Floyd began to take shape when Barrett and Wright joined the group (I think that even the band's name was an idea of Barrett) and that is why they should by listed by alphabetic order (per template). But, according to the template's recommandations, I agree with the fact that Gilmour should be last as he only joined the band in 1967. --Bright Darkness (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, Mason and Waters were definitely in a band together that Wright joined several months later, but no, it wasn't called Pink Floyd until Syd came-up with a variation of the name during the fall of 1965, at which time Mason and Waters had been playing together for nearly three years. The issue here is that if we list the first four alphabetically it gives the false impression that Barrett was there the entire time the band was forming, he wasn't. Mason and Waters were the first two, then came Wright, Barrett and Gilmour. If we take the position that Pink Floyd did not exist until the name change, then I guess we would list Mason, Waters, Wright and Barrett alphabetically and then Gilmour last, but that might be even more confusing, and I'm not crazy about listing Barrett first, even if he did invent the name. There's a similar situation at the Beatles, where we list them in the classic order of Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr, but technically, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were all in a band that changed their name to the Beatles. So if we apply the same logic there that we are considering here, we would list Lennon, McCartney and Harrison alphabetically, with Starr last, i.e. Harrison, Lennon, McCartney, Starr, which doesn't seem right either. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the bullets as per the template. In doing so I restored the original order which is the long-standing status quo until Gabe decided to change it despite the comment about not doing it. And then changes the comment to tell the rest of us not to change it back. The order I'm not bothered about, but it should be agreed and noted on talk and kept there. No sense in changing every month. But the bullets need to stay. Atlas-maker (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can't say that I'm at all surprised to have been reverted yet again by Atlas-maker, but can they at least give us all a good reason why we should ignore the template guidelines and list them alphabetically versus in order of joining? Also, at this point it seems that two of us, User:Laser brain and myself, want them listed in order of joining, and two want them listed alphabetically. So what can be said to be the current consensus? Also, what's with "But the bullets need to stay", why do they need to stay. Atlas-maker, you do not own this article, so why do you think that you can unilaterally decide formatting style here? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The reason the bullets need to stay is that the template Template:Infobox musical artist#past_members says "Separate multiple entries using * list markup. ". Atlas-maker (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so your position is that the bullets must stay because Template:Infobox musical artist#past_members says so, but it also says: "Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names" (emphasis added). So why are you being slavish to one aspect of the guideline while completely ignoring another? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring it. There is a discussion underway to agree the consensus on the order and agree how the template guidance should apply in this case. I'm quite happy to allow the discussion to continue and decide in due course. The other part of the guidance is not open to interpretation, IMHO. Which is why it can fixed right now. Its very simple really. Atlas-maker (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
If we rank the past members alphabetically, it will be immediately clear for the reader how the members are ranked. It's more neutral than ranking them in order of joining.Christo jones (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I accept the premise that alpha order is the the most obvious. However, listing them in the order joined gives the reader more information than just the names. --Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's only a box, it really doesn't matter. List them alphabetically, that'd be my preference. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, if both PoD and CJ want them listed alphabetically, then I guess that's the working consensus, but even User:Bright Darkness agrees that, as the last person to join, Gilmour should not be listed second. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
My 2¢, I think Template:Infobox musical artist#past_members should be followed with the assumption that Floyd did not exist until the name change. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • FTR, despite User:Atlas-maker's above assertion: "I restored the original order which is the long-standing status quo until Gabe decided to change it", when the article passed FAC in October 2012 (fourteen months ago), the band members were not listed alphabetically. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that the advice on the template is unclear, so the discussion should take place there, with a notice left on the relevant Wikiproject talkpages. Given that the template does not appear to specify for the reader which list order is being used, it's all rather messy. One list could be alphabetical, one listed entirely by order of joining, and another - as being proposed here - listed initially alphabetical with additional members added at the bottom, without the reader being aware of what is going on; this gives the appearance that Wikipedia infoboxes are the preserve of some secret society where you can only understand what's going on when you've passed the initiation ceremony. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SilkTork. Too often, IMO, we develop a local consensus that contradicts or ignores our guidelines. For once I would like to see those who want to deviate from the stated guidelines start a discussion at the appropriate talk page about changing or adding to the guideline, versus just ignoring it or bending it to the will of a majority !vote. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Formatting of the list

User:GabeMc has reverted the longstanding bulleted list format of the member list with a rather obtuse edit summary "this is currently under discussion, so please don't edit-war. 2) nothing in the MoS requires bullets; you are misrepresenting the guideline)" and posted the following on my talk page

RE: "The reason the bullets need to stay is that the template Template:Infobox musical artist#past_members says "Separate multiple entries using * list markup. ". Atlas-maker (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)"
See also: Help:List#Streamlined style or horizontal style, which states:
It is also possible to present short lists using very basic formatting, such as:
''Title of list:'' example 1, example 2, example 3
Title of list: example 1, example 2, example 3
This style requires less space on the page, and is preferred if there are only a few entries in the list, it can be read easily, and a direct edit point is not required. The list items should start with a lowercase letter unless they are proper nouns.
  • So, I've reverted you based on the fact that your preferred style is not at all required by this guideline, which you have misrepresented in your edit summary. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I believe the discussion on the list format is an inappropriate topic for my talk page. It needs to be discussed and decided here. That I should be 'instructed' not to edit war is just laughable when it is accompanied by a revert. But the crux of the argument is that the specific project/template MoS will always override the generic list MoS as it does in this case with the words "Separate multiple entries using * list markup. ". Thats an instruction to use a bulleted list, wouldn't you agree. Atlas-maker (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

But Atlas-Maker, your edit used a Unbulleted list. Yet, here you say "Thats an instruction to use a bulleted list". What gives? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to change it to {{plainlist}} instead if you like? Atlas-maker (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I prefer to not use the templates at all, but since others here seem to like them I think they should stay. At any rate, I strongly prefer User:Pigsonthewing's approach. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
If it will solve matters, I'm happy to not use a template and just add the necessary markup straight into the infobox. But its more space consuming and less neat. Which is why Andy uses flat list coding. Atlas-maker (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Genres

I think hard rock should be listed because it plays an important role in shaping Pink Floyd's genre durring the years, especially on the later records like the wall, animals, and the final cut, but also in more, obscured by clouds and even dark side of the moon.They have many hard rock songs (the nile song young lust what shall we do now and a lot more)and it should be listed beacoused it played more importnt role in defineing their sound than other genres they got into durring years and there is a little hard rock in almost every record (except maybe the divission bell and athom heart mother) and in some albums there are plenty of it.

The list with songs by PF which can be classified as hard rock is definitely long (Ibiza Bar, several parts of Sheep, One of my Turns, Not Now John and others). During live performances they have played their songs even harder than on the albums (Echoes, Careful with that axe, etc). On the VH1-list Pink Floyd was ranked as 15th greatest hard rock band.[6]Christo jones (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's true I guess, but they also did several folky acoustic numbers ("Pigs on the Wing", "Mother", "Southhampton Dock"), and many straight pop tunes, especially during the Syd era, so is Pink Floyd also a folk band and a pop band? I could quote Waters saying that they were a pop group. IMO, we go too far with these genre tags. A band has an overall genre, and then sure, if you look through their catalog you will find examples of all kinds of music. The approach we took at the Beatles was to only list rock and pop, because 99% of everything they did falls into one of those two cats. Having said that, I already think that I've wasted too much time on this, and as a project its amazing how much time we spend on genres, so I'll just step back and let others decide. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I am agree with the note about the "folk numbers" but unlike the hard rock genre, folk appears only in their early era, in songs like "green is the color"; "wot's uh...the deal"; and "fearless" , but even the albums which these songs belog to are not folk albums (you cant call meddle a folk album) but hard rock tunes like "hey you" "in the flesh" "another brick in the wall part 3" "sheep" and so on help to deffine the sound of "the wall" and "animals" as progressive rock/hard rock (this note can be confirmed by many reviews and quotes by rolling stone allmusic and others) and there are other PF albums with partially hard rock sound like the final cut and obscured by clouds but none of the pink floyd albums (except maby atom heart mother) can be classified as folk rock + the fact that as i metioned folk appears in the 1st half of their carrera but hard rock ellements are constant (there is hard rock even in the barett era because they play really heavy live and songs like lucifer sam and interstellar overdrive have hard rock ellements;there is hard rock in "more", a little bit in "meddle" "obc" , a little bit in dark side and there is plenty of it in the wall animals and some in the final cut).As far as the statement that they played a lot pop tunes:I am absolutley disagree! the only songs that contain pop ellements (except from the first album) are "free four", "one slip", "take it back" and "keep talking". I am agree that there is pop in the barett era but even the first album contains a lot more genres preceding the psych pop, like psych rock prog rock experimental rock and folk rock so even the first album is not so much "pop" .Also David Gilmour is more comerssial oriented in the 80s and 90s but even the last 2 album are not pop, and pop music does not shape their sound durring the years.Their 5 classic albums have a lot hard rock in them but they dont have any pop tunes in,or there is a lot more hard rock than pop!The Genre they spent most time into except psych/prog rock is hard rock because there are songs with heavy ellements from the beggining to the end, and their most famous albums have a lot hard rock in them.The hard rock genre should be listed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivailo bg 95 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Line-up

A precise description of the line-up is obsviously missing (see feedbacks which were strangely ignored so far -- why?) Goodyntox (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The line-up is detailed in the article. Are you requesting that we add a chart, because we don't include charts to reiterate information already detailed in the prose. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean it is detailed throughout the article, or in the infobox (or maybe in a dedicated section -- I can't find it)? Whatever, I think it needs to be clearly mentioned at the beginning of the article. A chart would be a good thing. (See the French wikipedia about the band, first section: Pink Floyd ) Goodyntox (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
If you read the article, you will find out who was in the band and when. We don't add charts when the same info is already available in the form of in-line prose. Also, those charts are to be avoided in FAs. The French Wikipedia is absolutely irrelevant here, sorry. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers. As a non-fan, I find the article very frustating regarding such an important topic -- I had visited this page the first time to find out quickly who played what in the band. Search the keyword "drum" for instance, and you will see the article has to be improved in that regard. The first occurrence of the word is in sentence "Mason struggled to perform his drum part", with no earlier reference to Mason beeing the drummer... Goodyntox (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Goodyntox, I've made a couple of edits that I think improve the article's clarity regarding primary instruments. Thanks for your input! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks GabeMc, that's better now! Goodyntox (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Delicate Sound OF Thunder

Is there some reason why this important album of Pink Floyd's is missing from their discography?76.6.138.225 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Aerie Day

This is the Pink Floyd bio, not the Pink Floyd Discography, which, unlike the bio, contains live and compilation album information. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Pulse - The Live Album

This album is also missing from the discography. Hopefully someone at Wikipedia will read both of my talk pages and make the necessary corrections.76.6.138.225 (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Aerie Day

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014

Pink Floyd was LJTimothy (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not in BritEng. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blues rock

So I see that you have added blues rock genre into the info box which is one of the pointess things that you've done (and you have done a lot) since they dont have a single song that can be called simply blues rock they have only few songs that combine blues rock elements.But they have a lot of hard rock songs a lot more than blues rock actually, so the blues rock should be replaced by hard rock.I am looking at the rolling stones wikipedia and I see that the hard rock genre is listed there and I just dont see how someone could possibly consider rolling stones to be heavyer than pink floyd when the stones havent done a single song that is even close to "Not now John" in tearms of heaviness . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.237.180 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well obviosly someone removes my redaction evry time I try to add the hard rock genre into the box so I am talking to him/her/it/them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.237.180 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, Dan. The Country Girl added blues rock. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014

I've made a timeline for Pink Floyd, and I believe the page should be changed to include it SgtPepper712 (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This has come-up numerous times before and the consensus here is that is looks daft. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.oup.com/us/companion.websites/019530053X/studentresources/chapter11/key_terms/
  2. ^ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/36651/art-rock
  3. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/subgenre/art-rock-ma0000002431
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_Floyd/Archive_10&oldid=1088805001"