Talk:The Wall/Archive 1

Plot Relation to Continuity

At the end of the track, it is known that with the continuity, the words "Isn't this where..." are heard. As we all know, back at the beginning of the album, at the beginning of the track "In the Flesh?", the words "...we came in?" can be faintly heard. The plot spoiler for "Outside the Wall" states that the fate of Pink is unknown, but with the concept of continuity, can't it be theorized that the cycle starts all over for Pink even after he destroys his mental wall? As in, someone else he knows dies (perhaps his mother), and he goes through the same phase again? I dunno, just spitballing here. I'd like to here what the rest of you have to say about this. --- Xephyrwing

• His fate is unknown- he may be free or it may start again. The point is, that even though he tore down his wall, someone out there, wether it be you, Pink or me, has begun the same cycle. MajorB 03:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't get that it implies "someone out there" and not Pink starts over, that is a bit hard to be sure of, but I suspect we will each have slight variations in interpretation there. Is his fate sealed? I don't know, but it certainly implies that it is not over, and to me suggests that life is a series of trials and tribulations. The fact that the exact sentence rolls from the end of the album and onto the beginning suggests the same thing happening all over - just to what degree is it the same? Just my spitballing in return, not suggestions for article change here Fitzhugh 06:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • As I see it Pink is a symbol of humanity, and I think Roger Waters also said something to that effect in the DVD commentary. The cycle repeats itself, perhaps for Pink, but certainly for "someone out there". Clq 07:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think the story for Pink ends when the wall is finally torn town. The moral of the story at the end is that no matter how much we try, we are always going to fight against "the powers that be", mental or otherwise. The whole "isn't this where/where we came in?" can be seen as the vicious circle that is life. The voice can be considered separate from the concept of the album, as if someone is listening and asking "wait a minute, isn't this where we came in?" It's the observation of the concept, or movie, or whatever. It's a reference to the theme, but not about the theme. --Johmbolaya 19:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• In the Isle of Wight Festival documentary from 1970, there's a lot of talk about the wall that kept non-paying hippies out. There were a lot of protests and symbolic gestures against the organizers who kept out fans with this corrugated steel wall, which was spray painted and vandalized extensively. Repkow (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot Section

I commented out the Plot section for these reasons:

• It was less a plot section and more of a synopsis for each song.
• It didn't look that good compared to the rest of the article, both in structure and style.
• Each song has it's own article, and plot details should probably be placed there.
• There's already a detailed plot description in the Concept section.
• It did not take into account that the concept has some room for interpretation of events.

MajorB 19:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tour

Moved this from the article to here: <<Pink Floyd began a tour to promote The Wall, but the gigantic, elaborate state show was so expensive that it quickly lost money. The tour was cancelled after only a few performances.>> This is incorrect. The show played in New York, Los Angles, London, and another European venue too I think. Each city got 2 weeks of shows, or something. Waters, Gilmour, and Mason all invested in the show (Wright was kicked out of the band by now, yet still played the tour), and made no profits, pretty much paying themselves, and the crew, backup singers etc. to play. The shows were elaborate though, with three screens projected onto a carboard-brick wall that was built throughout the first half of the show, and broken down at the end

-- Zoe

• Correct. From what I read, the tour was never meant to be a full scale, multi-city tour. With the stage set up and the costs involved to move it around, it would have been too much. I believe the idea all along was to keep it to a limited amount of cities and leave it at that. I believe this is the reason why the concerts were filmed, in the hopes of releasing it as a concert film. The concert film was never released, although bootleg copies have circulated for years. --Johmbolaya 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Track Listing

Unfortunately I do not have this on vinyl, and have only a cd recording. But the first track of disc 2 on my album is "goodbye cruel world" done over with a longer intro and outro. Do I have an obscure version, did they change it from original vinyl to cd versioning, or is the track listing in need of correction? I am not certain, and am thus posting it here rather than editing. Kai

The version you are referring to is the soundtrack album from Pink Floyd The Wall (film). Just64helpin

I have a CD version I bought today, which was digitally re-mastered in 1994, and the track listing is the same as in the article. JP Godfrey 16:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone happen to have the original track list as in the vinyl record lp? Like how the tracks broke down on each side. [unsigned]

Ok, i have changed this to reflect the original LP tracklisting. As this work was originally released before the advent of CD i feel the tracklisting should reflect its original release format. I think that with Pink Floyd in particular the constraints of having to split an album accross 4 sides made a difference in the production of their work. i.e. If CD's were around at the time you would probably find longer tracks, no breaks between tracks etc.. I hope this is okay with everyone? - Murphyweb 6th Feb 2006

Censorship.

The quotes near the bottom have an asterisk in the word "Fuck" in the last paragraph, but the word "fuckin'" does not. I assumed this was intentional censorship on the part of the writer and went into the editing console to remove it (since censorship should have no place in a reference material, in my opinion.)

I discovered that in the console, it is not censored.

...What's going on? Does wikipedia automatically censor it and simply not recognize the "fuckin'" string as a curse? And how would we go about curbing the censorship if it *were* automatic?

Test fuck 80.41.205.100 11:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Movie (and Concept)

The movie plot given in this article differs significantly from the story or concept behind the album, in that it claims that Pink tries to commit suicide, and actually does become a neo-nazi leader. I think that the movie pretty much mirrors the concept as described in the article - a lot of the events depicted in the movie are metaphorical. Pink tearing melting worms of his face and emerging as a fascist leader can't be taken literally.

Vhata

Of course it could be taken literally, it's a metaphorical story. Yes, the fact that he was a Neo-Nazi was a metaphore for turning fear into hate (or whatever your own interpretation of it is) but that doesn't mean it was a metaphore within the story. You could say that Cinderella was a metaphorical story, but that doesn't mean that the character in the story didn't really magically go to the ball.

I also strongly feel that there should be a part in the concept section that says the story can have multiple interpretations: The basic rock star/audience relationship, Isolation within the self, I know some serious Floyd fans who believe this album is actually about Hitler (Sitting in a bunker, here behind my wall). See the analytical web site linked at the bottom of this article for much more about the concept.

The Album Songs

I made articles for each of the songs (except for ones with an article). If there is any problem with them, either change it or we can duke it out. Househippie

The Article itself

Is wikipedia copyrighted? because ive seen the exact same article in various internet pages. Just thought that might interest someone. On a side note, I tend to second the opinion that alot of things can't be taken literally on the album. Though it is very difficult to say which, especially as the movie/album doesnt follow standard narrative.

-an anonymous user of wikipedia

Not a demo

A minor nitpick but it really should be addressed in the interest of accuracy. What you discuss here as a "demo" of The Wall isn't really a demo per se. You should probably just refer to it as early recordings. Demos are usually quite polished and intended to present the work to those not involved in the creation process like record execs and music industry people. I've heard these "demos" and it sounds more like a working rough meant for internal use, i.e., for band members, Bob Ezrin, etc. It's much too rough to be called a demo. You should change reference to it to "early recordings" and explain it something like "What is commonly thought of as a demo of The Wall is most likely an early recording intended for internal use only... blah blah..." Or at least include a disclaimer like "Note: we use the term 'demo' here only because it is frequently called that although it likely isn't a demo... etc."

I wrote an exhaustive, four-part examination of these recordings for Spare Bricks and you can read my intro to it here:

http://sparebricks.fika.org/sbzine12/brickbybrick.html

I explain this in much more detail there. If you want to use any of the wording from my article to explain this here, feel free.

Agreed, i do not think this needs to be referenced in here, all these songs are just early versions of the finished article, every single band will have early tracks of songs hanging around, many of them now on the net. This section would be more at place on the main Pink Floyd section under a heading of "unreleased material".

The section was removed after sitting around with a "citations needed" box for 8 months, and on that basis I agree it should have been removed, although I disagree with the edit summary, "not needed". I felt some of this detail was helpful, especially the information that it was planned as a triple LP at one time. But if nobody is going to be bothered to cite it, it should be removed. Someone may want to look into this again, and restore it with proper citations. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Covers

Aside from the well-known mentioned compilation, various artists have covered "The Wall". Best example I can find is [Luther Wright and the Wrongs] "Rebuild The Wall", but there are others - and other covers of single songs, like the Scissor Sisters' Comfortably Numb. Question is, do these bear mention?

I believe they do and in an attempt to feature said covers have begun to add them with much contempt for those hampering my progress.208.248.33.30 (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Merely existing is not a criterion for inclusion; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Some reliable source to indicate their relevance might be a good idea. Also, contempt is an unpopular attitude around these here parts. Rodhullandemu 16:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see why the Mushroomhead cover should be removed, seeing as the album link may be used to verify it's presence in the track listing. It's not like I'm going to add next to it why it's there, and merely existing is definitely not the reason. If you personally need a reason, the section is called Covers for a reason and the track Empty Spaces was covered by said band on the album XX.Rion2032 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Potsdamer Platz Live

I just found out that the live performance at the Potsdamer Platz (Berlin, 1990 or something) isn't here. People, that one is just too historical not to be featured. With some luck I'll be able to have that written within this week. Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 20:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a section for the live in berlin performance, but it occurs to me that with as many famous people that there were performing in it, there should be a lust on the page. -Idiotninja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.115.45 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

The newly added trivia section needs some formatting. -Ashwin Vishnu

The whole lyrics for "Waiting for the Worms" can be found at: [1]

Lyrics

I posted the lyrics to the songs on their pages. Promptly, I recieved a note telling me not to post lyrics anymore becausethey are copyrighted (which they are, that's not what I'm arguing). What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense, because these lyrics are not beig used for any personal gain other than the knowledge of the song's lyrics. And if ad-supporting sites such as songlyrics.com, letssingit.com, and lyrics007.com can post the lyrics to these songs, what makes wikipedia different. And if I am wrong, please do not slash me, but instead tell me courteously. P.S. If I added the copyright information to the lyrics/article, would that make it legal?

"If I added the copyright information to the lyrics/article, would that make it legal?" No. Artists can choose to close their eyes to all the lyrics, guitar tabs, etc., but they are still possible to be taken as copyright infringements. The only thing that makes them legal to be posted is a written authorization from the author. —Rotring 14:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for the worms - Trivia

In the audio commentary on the new The Wall DVD, Roger Waters mentiones that the shout out commands were mostly improvised when recording. I am not sure if there is an online source to this. Can this be added without a linkable source? Thanks. Clq 20:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Wall 2000"

The last item in the Trivia section mentions two tribute/re-imagining albums. Should Out of Phase's ambient/dance The Wall 2000 [2] be mentioned as well? —alxndr (t) 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye Blue Sky

What is the real plot to this song? Is it just a matter of opinion? I personaly think it's Pink looking at the Germans bombing over London.24.188.127.35 03:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, its rather Pink thinking about it than actually looking at it. The animation part in the film is based on the childhood memories of the animator, Gerald Scharfe. As far as the meaning of the plot goes, in my opinion it is more of a way to set the mood than an important part of the plot.

The following is from the wall - a complete analysis: "In an interview around the album's release, Waters described the song as being a recap of the first side of album one summing up Pink's life to that point. As Waters says, in it's most simplistic form "it's remembering one's childhood and then getting ready to set off into the rest of one's life." " and "Pink is saying "goodbye" to the "blue sky" of his childhood innocence and the protection of his mother."

Clq 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is about the Cold War. "...the flames are all long but the pain lingers on...". This could be London on fire during the Blitz or radiation sickness.

Too long

Could we split this article in a near future?--Doktor Who 22:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"When the Tigers Broke Free" contradiction

The page for When the Tigers Broke Free states this song was written "at the same time as The Wall, hence its copyright date of 1979". This suggests it was not "written for the movie" as stated in this article. However, it could be true if Waters was envisioning a movie even then — does anyone know if this is true? Alternately, is it known if this song was considered for inclusion on the album? --edgarde 05:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the When The Tigers Broke free pt. 1 was originally written for the album, but not included. I -think- the later part (where he thinks about his father) was written for the movie. I am not entirly sure about this however, but I know it is mentioned in the commentary on the new The Wall release. If someone could check this out it would be nice, Ill check it myself when I get the time for it. Clq 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Piper at The Gates of Dawn one of Pink Floyd's best albums?

I know the hardcore Floyd fans like to name drop Piper as being a great album...but seriously people. I think the idea of naming the "great" pink floyd albums is stupid anyway, since it's purely opinion. But most would definately agree that Wish you were here and Dark Side are on that list. I think putting Piper on that is dumb. I personally like Piper, but it is not at the same level as the other albums, and i know i'm going to get a million pretentious rhetorts...but there's just no way.

No, I completely agree. But I'll let it stay until consensus - perhaps you will hear a million pretentious replies (I don't think I noticed it still there, actually). Fitzhugh 06:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Berlin Wall

I have a photograph taken recently by me of a section of the Berlin Wall showing old graffiti of sleeve note art from the album. Would this be of use in the article? JP Godfrey (Talk to me) 16:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of Comfortably Numb

The current interpretation in the article seems really far off base. It seems highly implied that Pink is in an opium haze when they find him in his room. The doctor lies to him, saying "Just a little pinprick. There'll be no more pain, but you may feel a little sick." In the middle of his line he injects Pink with an opiate killer (Naloxone? Something like that), which kills the high almost instantly and hurts like hell. Hence.... all of Pink's screaming at this moment? 12.175.230.58 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fanciful. Utterly fanciful. --63.25.230.163 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion regarding Naloxone fits perfectly (um, let's not get into how I know...) Assuming he was not truly strung out, just high, he would go through hell but then, after a very short while, be all ok and able to put on a show. If he were truly strung out he'd then be too sick with withdrawl to put on a sock, let alone a show - though that distinction probably doesn't matter for this case since I'm in no way trying to argue about whether he was strung out or just high... he had major issues regardless. Right now it says he was given antidepressants! I think we'd have a song about bunnies and flowers and bright happy days in the sun at this point if they gave him antidepressants... just kidding, not saying that a dose of prozac would fix him at that point, but it DOES NOT FIT! Plus, antidepressants are not given in shots. It also says above in Another Brick in the Wall part something that he had given up all the drugs by this point... doesn't Comfortably Numb occur right, soon, after he'd lined a vast array of drugs and stuff around on his hotel floor? I haven't seen it in years, I'm afraid, but I saw it many times as a teenager, so I am sure about the antidepressants not fitting, and the opiate haze/shot of opiate antagonist/utter screaming hell/able to function fitting very very well. Secondly, I concur that this whole section has problems, but I do think it is important information. I think perhaps a synopsis section here, with links to a separate full article for plot, would be the best approach since the songs as a whole DO tell a story, and that needs to be explained in some degree in the article, just not in this format.

After further contemplation; I really, really hate the entire Plot section. I agree broadly with MajorB, and add that this section comes off as fanboyish. The site (one of dozens) with an interpretation of the album (which is linked to in the article), leans toward my interpretation of Comfortably Numb. But; individual consideration of each song belongs in its own article. I support the Plot section's removal. 12.175.230.58 02:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There should not be any attempts at "explaining" "Comfortably Numb", let alone attempting to nail down exactly what kind of substance he received in the doctor's injection. To me, it seems obvious it was a stimulant, but apparently all sorts of people think all sorts of things. I also must say, it is by no means obvious that "Pink" is an opioid addict. --63.25.230.163 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Album Length

I just counted up the length of the songs in the track listing and got 1h 17m 20s -- a full four minutes shorter than the previous total length. Could someone verify the length? --Jon Terry 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you counted the times as they are listed for each song and that (perhaps) doesn't account for the space between songs, as would be when you read about how long an album is start-to-finish? I don't know, just a possible answer. Fitzhugh 05:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some changes needed to shorten and tidy this article..

Hi, just some ideas but i think we all agree something is needed. This article should be about the recording "The Wall" and nothing else, it is important to talk about the live shows preceding and effectively giving birth to the album but apart from that this should be only about the album. There should be just a mention that a film was made and a link to the films article but nothing else, likewise with subsequent live shows etc..

Same as all the rest of the fillers in this article...

Post-Split - Get Rid Additional tracks from the film - Get Rid " " Live Concert - Get Rid

Unused Tracks - No, this is about the album, if they are not on the album then who cares? Do we have an article on unrecorded Floyd songs? if yes put them there, if not then maybe there should be one!

Cover Versions - No, Who cares? Likewise either put them in the Floyd article or make a new article for Floyd covers. I think the plot section has no place in this article at all, all it does is follow the plot of the film and this is just a version of the story of this album that was written for Hollywood. As we all should know this album carries too many story's and meanings to have any kind of plot, i am sure we all have our own ideas of what this album is about and non of us are wrong. I do not want to see someone else's interpretation given as fact.

As you can guess this album holds a special place in my heart and life as i have grown up with it since i was a boy when it was release. Many of the songs hold great meaning for me.

I propose a complete re-working of this article, starting from scratch and i would like to help do this. What do other think?

I think it is important to include at bare minimum some mention of side works. The Wall was planned to be a multi-pronged product from its inception - album, show, and movie. The additional songs not included in the initial album (such as When the Tigers Broke Free) should definitely be considered part of the canon of the works; they are available all over the place in a myriad of forms of "The Wall." The only part of this article that bothers me personally is The Plot section (see above), since it is outright WRONG in several places. I support removing it readily, and will do so in a few months if someone else doesn't speak up for it, or deletes it first. 12.175.230.38 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

song synopsis

should someone add a list of what each song in the wall would represent in the story...such as another brick in the wall part 1 being about Pink's father dieing in war overseas?

I remember we used to have that kinda thing for each song. But, I don't remember when it got removed. Maybe we should bring it back, it explaned alot to me about the songs when I first looked at it. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 23:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it may actually have been removed by the above poster (of Some changes needed to shorten and tidy this article..). ErleGrey 23:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Movie soundtracks audible in background

I can't believe there is no list or analysis of the movie soundtrack extracts heard in the background throughout this album.

I came here to check if Citizen Kane is one of the ones used, just watched it and The Wall very almost parallels this movie, lots of the movie sounded familiar, and I wondered if The Wall is probably where I remember these lines from. Any ideas? I know there are a whole bunch of famous old flicks in there, so people, please help out with this if you can.

Waiting for the Worms

Why the heck has been removed that section as unsupported claim?

[...] To clean up the city. To burn up blacks again. To weed out the weaklings. To smash in their windows and kick in their doors. For the final solution to strengthen the strain. To follow the worms. Waiting for the worms. To turn on the showers and fire the ovens. Waiting for the queers, coons, the reds and the jews

It can be clearly heard/listened to on the LP, CD and movie.--Dr. Who 13:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Could people PLEASE check their album/CD covers for the actual words to songs before putting them up. The words here are "To put on a blackshirt" (nothing about burning up blacks again) and "For the queens and the coons and the reds and the jews" Perhaps someone removed them because they are wrong! NH79.121.143.143 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Best selling?

The Pink Floyd's best selling album: The Dark Side of the Moon. 15x Platinum - 15 million unit. The Wall: 23x Platinum, DUBLE ALBUM! - 11,5 million units. 82.141.159.95 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. I fixed the lead to reflect that. 74.77.208.52 03:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why's the album divided into 4 (i.e. as the cassette release)?

I think the title says it all. The cassette relese is the lesser of the three types, as with the majority of albums. I understand that the album has sold more copies on record than anything, then CD and then cassette, but I think it would be fair to assume that the CD is the most common and most accessible version. I think it'd be best to change the tracklisting according to the CD. Actually, I'm just saying this so that people can see why I did when they look at the edit I do.
--linca^linca 13:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a double record album, that means it had 4 sides, right? I would revert it and add a separate CD listing. Your edit has removed precious content, something that newcomers would look for.--Doktor Who 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we are both wrong, 'cos according to the article the album was released as a single cassette, though I'm sure that in continental Europe it was a double cassette.Doktor Who 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a single-cassette version (USA). That doesn't mean it wasn't initially a double. --63.25.238.237 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look at a previous post entitled 'track listing' you would have seen that last year i changed the track listing from the CD style to the original Double album format, why you decided to change it back is beyond me. Just because the CD is the most accessible format at this moment, very soon this will have been overtaken by downloads anyway and there will be no sides whatsoever. It is important that the original format of the release is kept regardless of what technology people are using now to listen to it. There is a very good reason for this in that when writing, composing and arranging this recording Pink Floyd would have been handicapped by the available minutes on 4 sides of vinyl to get this down. If Cd's, or computer hard drives had been available in 1971 this would have been a very different record. I am changing back hope no-one minds.

You make an excellent point. Gilmour and Waters both have said many times that content was cut just to fit the time constraints. I'm sure "Young Lust" was meant to have an intro (but it's perfect the way it turned out, IMO), and that intro to "In the Flesh" was always meant to be longer, as Roger always does in concert. It would be cool to have a list of all the specific cuts that were made. Yes, technical limitations shaped the work itself.

--63.25.238.237 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another Synchrony?

Call me crazy, but I noticed when watching the funeral scene in the movie Hellboy and listining to Empty Spaces, there are some similarities in the song and scene. Anyone else want to test this out? --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "calling you crazy" per se, but it's not uncommon to notice synchronization between two random things at times...some of this is addressed in the Dark Side of the Rainbow article, although I think the DSOTR people have a better claim here. Put simply, one random song and one random scene can be found to match in some ways, and I doubt that they would try and do something that obscure unless they tried to sync with the whole album. Sir Elderberry 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article doesn't cite its sources. And also, just as the anonymous user of Wikipedia said, alot of Wikipedia's pages are on other pages.

Kaaos 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide sales claim

The worldwide sales claim of 30 million copies needs a citation. 74.77.208.52 03:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Double album RIAA sales figures

The RIAA double counts double albums as of 1997. This means The Wall is certified at 23x platinum for sales of 11.5 million copies. Not 23 million copies. I've already fixed this once. Do not revert again. 74.77.208.52 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT REVERT AGAIN. 74.77.208.52 04:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The RIAA say that since it is 81 (roughly) minutes long, it counts as a single album. That means 23x Platinum = 23 million copies/46 million CDs. NOT 11.5 million copies, 23 million CDs. I think that should sort out all confusion. In debates people appear to have been discussing things as if the RIAA certification is counting each double-album as being worth 2 sales units each. (The Elfoid 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)) Christo jones 10:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The RIAA certification is counting each double-album as being worth 2 sales units each. They have been doing this since 1997. That's why The Wall received that huge jump in platinum status in 1999. It's based on number of discs, not length. The Wall is on two discs. It's certified at 23x platinum for sales of 11.5 million copies. You're a fool if you think it has sold more copies than The Dark Side of the Moon.74.77.222.188 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hit singles?

Since when are "Young Lust", "Hey You", "Comfortably Numb" and "Run Like Hell" hit singles? Don't you have to hit the top forty, at least, to be considered a hit? None of those cuts hit the top forty. They received airplay on classic rock stations. 74.77.208.52 18:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron diBlasi

I think this should be Joe diBlasi... he's been credited for working with Floyd on numerous other sites. Joes an L.A. studio musican, an awesome all around musician, and a great guy. Plays more than just classical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.122.123 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

B-Class?

Oh no, this is far from THAT quality. It's an analyzation, and most edits there are focused on the concept of the album and analyzing every last speck of it right to death. Pinkfloydfreak 04:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstood metaphors?

I think some of the song synopses could do with some tweaking. I'd do it myself but I'm not much of a writer.

The Happiest Days of Our Lives: the chain reaction of violence is sketchy at best - I'd imagine the violence the fat psychopathic wives inflicted on their husbands would be more of a hen-pecking, psychological type. For instance, the movie shows a scene of the schoolmaster's wife browbeating him into eating everything on his dinner plate, which is a far cry from physically beating him.

Hey You: "the worms ate into his brain" is about how his paranoid delusions slowly overtook his mind, not about worms literally rotting his brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.28.88 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

RIAA certification

The Wall is certified at 23x platinum for sales of 11.5 million copies. Double albums are double counted as of 1997. The Wall was certified platinum in 1980 for sales of one million copies. It was certified 4x platinum in 1984 for sales of four million copies. It was certified 7x platinum in 1989 for sales of seven million copies. It was certified 8x platinum in 1991 for sales of eight million copies. It was certified 10x platinum in 1995 for sales of ten million copies. Note that it took sixteen years to sell ten million copies. Then, in 1997, it was certified TWICE because the rules changed. Double albums would now be double counted. The Wall is certified 11x platinum in 1997 for sales of eleven million copies and then, due to the new rules, it is certified at 22x platinum for sales of eleven million copies of a double album. This is all verifiable by going to riaa.com, clicking on "gold and platinum" and looking the album up in their searchable database. I'm sure no one will argue that The Wall sold eleven million copies in 1997 alone. In 1999 The Wall was certified at 23x platinum for sales of 11.5 million copies of the double album. It has not been certified since. Hopefully this will put an end to the debate. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Waters Loses Temper With Audience.ogg

Image:Waters Loses Temper With Audience.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Hi,I am fairly new to this but reading through the entire Wall entry, track by track, I'm most concerned at glaring errors, many of which seem to be coming from Fitch and Mahon's cited book on The Wall. I have grave doubts about the musicians' credits where we have keyboard parts credited to musicians when there are no keyboard parts. An example being Clavinet and Organ on "The happiest days of our Lives". There are NO keyboards on that track so I've removed them. Also we KNOW Rick Wright was ousted very early on because he wasn't coming up with anything. Yet he is credited with some sort of keyboard contribution on nearly every track!

Gilmour seems to have become the bass player yet the only bass part I've heard him claim to be playing was the fretless on "Hey You"

WHAT drill on Comfortably Numb? I've not read their book but unless they can back up some of their wild claims I don't think they should be cited. 79.121.143.143 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)NH 13th Feb 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.143.143 (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the 2nd edition of Fitch's The Pink Floyd Encyclopedia, and it doesn't claim there are any keyboards on "Happiest". But it does credit Wright with specific keyboard instruments on those songs which have keyboards (with the disclaimer, "Personnel (Known musicians only):"

As for Gilmour, I've read an interview in which he said he played most of the bass on the records, after a certain point in the band's career, because Waters couldn't be bothered. Roger would win polls in music magazines for best bass player, and thank Dave for it. Dave revealed all this to Musician magazine, then a few months later they put Roger on the cover (promoting Amused to Death) and interviewed him, and he admitted it readily. I actually still have the issue somewhere, so if I can be bothered I'll get it out to use as a source. But you could probably find a transcription somewhere.

When one of the guitar magazines transcribed "Pigs (Three...)" for guitar and bass, I tried learning the bass line (not my instrument of choice), and it's intensely difficult. I don't mean the solo stuff, that's just a matter of playing tastefully. But the verses and the ending section are quite tricky. No way in hell Roger played that one. Fitch's book backs me up on that. (Oh, and I know he played bass on the KAOS shows when they did "Pigs", but it's a much simpler bass line he's doing.)

--63.25.238.237 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Track-by-track analysis

Someone(s) have worked very hard on this section; unfortunately it has to go as it is clearly Original Research. If the original contributor(s) have references or sources for any parts of the analysis here, they can be added with citations. I'd recommend that this stuff finds another home on one of the various Floyd fan pages out there. Jgm (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland SYNC

I synced Alice in wonderland with pink floyd the wall and it went togther perfect.

both alice and wonderland and pink floyd the wall and the same length!

here is a link to back up my clam

[3]

I will check out your backup just for a goof. If anyone truly believes that syncing up with Alice in Wonderland was of any importance prior to the release of The Wall or any other Floyd album, then they have truly gone fishing! Listen and feel. Thats all (with respect). 500 years from now their work will still be relevant. you're gonna have to trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.232.54 (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian Wilson? Oh, please . . . .

Somebody put "Brian Wilson: Vocal arrangements" in the Personnel section. Why? Does this person think Bruce Johnston can't do anything without Brian there to hold his hand? Any number of people could have arranged the harmonies. Johnston himself, or in collaboration with others. The main four guys, Chemay/Farber/Haas/Joyce, could have done it. Gilmour could have done it. I would bet Johnston. He's a smart man who knew a lot before he joined the Beach Boys, and then he watched and learned from the master for years. I find it exceedingly unlikely that Brian would have had anything to do with The Wall. In 1979, Brian Wilson wasn't involved with much of anything, not even his own band. Johnston has talked about his experience frequently, and never mentioned that Brian was involved. Brian has never revealed such a thing, and wouldn't you mention it if you were on such a famous album?

Even though I'm certain this is strictly someone's fantasy (Imagine if Brian and Roger wrote a song together!), I'm going to put a citeneeded on it, instead of removing it outright. --63.25.238.237 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

References section

Seems to be misnamed, to say the least?

Kst447 (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong track listed

In the very intro text, the example of a The Wall track dealing with Pink's father death in war is wrong, totally wrong. The right track on the matter is "When The Tigers Broke Free" and not "Another Brick in The Wall", as mentioned. I corrected the wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Nighttime (talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is... "When the Tigers Broke Free" isn't on the album. It was on a single, and used in the film. But the article is about the album. ABITW part 1 is not "totally wrong" as an example of what the paragraph is trying to stay, so I'm restoring it.

PS, when you add a section to a page, please add it to the bottom, or use the tab at the top for creating a new section. And don't forget to sign your posts; it will look nicer than when dear old SineBot does it for you. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Something amusing I noticed...

At the bottom of the article (just above the Pink Floyd infobox), there is a box with links to previous and next albums in charts. Next albums are "Against the Wind" and "Off the Wall". Hah! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "The Wall Review" :
  • {{Citation|year=February 1980| title=AllMusic Guide|http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:wsjm7i6jg75r}}.
  • {{Citation|year=February 1980| title=Rolling Stone|http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/pinkfloyd/albums/album/114225/review/6067347/the_wall}}.

DumZiBoT (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Done

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up/references

This page has problems. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking for help, please give some specifics. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well i am. Most of the claims doesn't have a source and its some false information. As far as i know Pink Floyd has won one Grammy Award and thats for Marooned. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And they did. The Grammy mentioned in the article was not for Pink Floyd, but for Guthrie. I'd add the reference to the article myself, but I don't know how to create a direct link to the search results from Grammy's Winners page.--Krótki (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i was wrong. But this article lacks sources. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you are right. However at least some sections of the article do provide some sources. So, if you could place the {{refimprovesect|date=September 2008}} tag at the beginning of each section you have objections to, that would help future editors in resolving the issue.--Krótki (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

no, no. me. I'm goin to get this article to GA-class, the same thing with the Waking Up the Neighbours article, if someone wants to help me, just say so. :) --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

live performances... why was that section cut

why was everything relating to the tour and live performances cut? The tour itself was very ambitious, attempting to reenact the storyline of the album, with further visual themes

how is this not relevant to the article --69.248.97.216 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it was removed because it had a tag at the top stating, "This section does not cite any references or sources", dated May 2008, and nobody bothered to improve it over the 3+ months since then. According to WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY, if a complaint about unsourced material is not addressed within a reasonable period of time, the material should be removed.

You are welcome to restore the section and improve it; this would be appreciated. If you need help with restoring, let me know. Maybe you can make this a mini-project for yourself: to research the section and add references. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tracklist template - yea or nay?

An editor converted the tracklist to a template formatted version. Without wanting to appear resistant to change, I have a few problems with it:

• WP:ALBUM says nothing about recommending this template, and has its own formatting instructions which are not in agreement with what the template does.
  • Footnote to above: I looked again, and it does say a table can be used "in more complicated situations" but does not mention this template; however it points to an article which uses it, as an example. I'm wondering if the template was being used at the time that article was selected as an example, though? The instructions say to use "wikitable", not "tracklist".
• The first track on side 3 was previously called track 1. Now it is called track 14. It is not track 14 on either LP or CD formats. The template does not appear to have the flexibility to get around this.
• The composer names are in very tiny lettering. I object to tiny lettering in general on WP; there is no need for it. I looked at the template instructions, and found that the editor is mis-using a field called "note1" etc. instead of using the "writers" field. I tried using the correct field, but found that it does not work with the way this table is formatted, because if there is not a writer for every field, the "writing_credits" parm turns off. I'm guessing there is a bug in the template, and the editor is using a different field to get around it. Even if the use of "note1" were valid, I would think that if this template has been adequately reviewed for use, there would have been previous objections to its use of a small font, and that would have been changed.

So I don't like this template as used in this article, in part because it appears to be under-developed and buggy. I would like to remove it, unless the editor can point out some ways around these problems which I've overlooked. I will post a note on the editor's talk page. In the meantime, please comment on whether you prefer to template or previous version. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried it on A Boxful of Treasures; the "notes" field was too small to be legible, so I removed it and used "extra" instead; I didn't have the same problem with the "writers" even with empty fields, but that sure needs looking at. Meanwhile, I have no particular preference here except that there I used multiple copies of the template to reflect each disc's track list numbering properly; and the advantage of the template is that lengthy lists can be expanded/compressed to save space, if required. --Rodhullandemu 17:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've fixed my concerns. In this article, it already uses a new template for each album side, which I didn't notice before. That was the reason the "writers" field wasn't working; I only set it up on the first template. I also fixed the numbering concern by changing the parameter names. So... I'm okay with it now! :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Any way to add a Behind the Wall reference?

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCioS86N15g about 3:20 into it. Waters and Gilmore really describe the genesis of the Wall.

Also later in the documentary there's a great story were Waters mentions how Geldof hated Pink Floyd, and Geldof says as much to his manager in a cab they hailed, and that by coincidence, the cab was being driven by Waters' brother - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KuG6fcYN0g about 2:00 into it. Wamnet (talk)

I can't watch YouTube on the computer I'm using, although I can watch it on antoher I have. Are these clips taken from a TV show or DVD feature? If so, we should regard them as coming from that source, not YouTube, and it's possible their presence on YouTube is without authorization. Anyway, yes, if we have a source we can use this information if it's relevant. (I'm not sure if that includes Geldof's comment; not having seen the clip, I don't know if maybe he was just saying something outrageous for the benefit of the camera, or if it has any importance.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tracklist Thingy

Same issue with the tracklist template I had for "Meddle"--it doesn't allow a space to put lead vocalist! Anybody know of a way to rectify this issue? javascript:insertTags('PinkFloyd69 (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)',,)

As answered on the other talk page, vocal credits can be problematic becauswe they are not in the official credits, and because we have POV edit problems on our articles. It's best to leave them out of the track list. If necessary, they can be mentioned in the body of the article, but don't be surprised if some credits you insert get changed by anon IPs. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Luther Wright and the Wrongs

As much as I am a fan of this band... and their completely unique cover album (which is immensely entertaining BTW)... To me cover version section = "In propular culture" sections and "Trivia" sections and I am uneasy about this content being added to the article. If it were up to me every single "In pop culture"/"In other media"/"Trivia" section in every single Wikipedia music article would be deleted. But thats just me. Thoughts? The Real Libs-speak politely 12:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it too, and like it a lot. Your opinion about trivia sections is one of the longest standing debates on WP, and there are many places where you can find lengthly debates over it. There are various guidelines and rules that have been published as a result. The general consensus is that there is too much support for them to justify their removal, but we can keep a watch over them to make sure they don't get out of hand. I often remove new cover version additions when there is no article for the band or album on WP, regarding that as evidence of non-notability. (You have to be careful, sometimes there is a phony link to an unrelated article about the word that the band is named for.) If there is an article, and especially if the covered song is mentioned there, I usually presume the band, album, and covering of the song are all sufficiently notable, and leave it in. In this instance, it appears to be good, except that the editor also inserted a "citation" which is a link to the artist's website, which looks a little spammy. Since there is a wikilink to the band's and album's articles (where the link is undoubtably repeated), I would question whether they should have been added here, and whether a citation is appropriate at all in this article, since we have the wikilinks. (I know that there is also a rule that one WP article shouldn't be used as a citation for another, but in a case like this one, it seems to me that letting the citations in the other article stand as the citation for this one, seems like the right thing to do. Maybe someone can clarify if I'm on the wrong track.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Vocals column in tracklist

Is this desirable? Those of us who watch Pink Floyd articles are aware that there are some POV-driven editors who like to change credits around to give more weight to either Gilmour or Waters, and less to the other, even to the point of inserting factually incorrect information. These vocal credits are unsourced and incomplete, and are the very kind of thing that could be fiddled with in future, and who is to say whether the pre-fiddle or post-fiddle version is correct. We have resisted attempts to add vocal credits to other Pink Floyd album articles for these reasons, and I propose we do the same here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that verification policy states clearly that we should not add information that cannot be reliably sourced. Adding unformation is vandalism at worst and original research at best. Bottom line is that if there is no RS for vocals, we should omit it. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and I see the vocals column has been removed. The article now shows "Waters" as composer beside most tracks, instead of having "all tracks by Waters except where indicated" at top, but I see no reason to do this (a summary of the most frequently used composer credit is acceptable and encouraged), so I'm changing it. Let me know if there is an argument against this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Factoring out common, or general, information is desirable as it avoids unnecessary repetition. Exceptions can be noted when and where as appropriate. Rodhullandemu 15:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Double album

It was originally, just as was Saturday Night Fever (soundtrack). Changes in format due to technological advances should either be ignored, and sales broken down by vinyl only, or by units, or some reliable source for aggregated sales for the "product" in general be found. This is, at present, an unproductive dispute, and needs to have some authoritative input, with corresponding reflection in the article. Rodhullandemu 23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The RIAA certification level for The Wall indicates sales of of at least 11.5 million but less than 12 million. Saturday Night Fever has sold at least 15 million copies with the bulk of those sales being double albums as can be verified by its 11x platinum certification in 1984. Subsequent LP and cassette sales, sales of the 1990 2CD re-issue plus sales of the 1996 single CD remaster resulted in a 15x platinum certification in 1999. Sales of multi-unit sets since 1984 most likely pushed total beyond 11.5 million albums and probably account for about 13 million of the total with another 2 million sales coming from the single disc version. Based on the most recent RIAA certifcations for both albums (from 1999), it just isn't possible to make the claim that The Wall is the best-selling double album in the U.S. It's possible The Wall has surpassed Saturday Night Fever since 1999, but until the certifications are updated we can't say that. Piriczki (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How about basing it on world sales? In any case SNF was 11x Platinum whereas The Wall was/is 23x Platinum sales. --WebHamster 20:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Has it even been suggested that The Wall is the best-selling double album worldwide? It might not be, and it would be difficult to prove anyway. As for the certification levels, the problem is the two albums are certified based on different criteria. The Wall is based on "certified units" where 11.5 million double albums qualifies for 23x platinum but Saturday Night Fever is based on the old criteria counting an album as one unit, presumably because some the albums in the total are single discs. Piriczki (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Paper insert with Scarfe logo

I've got an original paper insert from the LP (I added a description to the packaging section), and I'm wondering about how (or whether) it can (or should) be integrated into the cover art in this article. These LP's were not sold as the plain Wall in the cover art picture. The insert is 4" x 7", just under 1/5 the total cover area. It was usually slanted, so it looked even more prominent (as if the plain Wall didn't set it off enough), and it made each LP look unique. Some inserts were laying sideways, some at a weird angle, etc. (When I was a kid it seemed everyone was trying to copy that logo onto their notebooks, and it was in grafitti everywhere, well before the labels were used on the plastic wrap.)

So has this come up before? It was a unique way to brand the album, and it was uniquely prominent album art, even if it wasn't attached to the cover itself. The paper is heavy, as if meant to be durable. I can't think of any other LP that was done like that, or that led to such a phenomenon of people trying to copy the calligraphy. The only other place the Scarfe logo appeared on the cover was the tiny version on the gatefold spine.

I'm not arguing that the insert was notable, only that it was integral to the unique front cover design. They wanted the logo to be huge, though absent once the album was opened and played. What do you all think? Should I scan it and add it somewhere? Dcs002 (talk) 08:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edits

User:Parrot of Doom has been reverting my recent edits to this article, with no edit summary. While I'm sure he knows that to so so is unacceptable, I'm going to invite him here to explain why he has done that.

Once that is cleared up, we can discuss why he removed this content with an edit summary of "trivia", when it is clearly not so.

The material, of course, should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that I'm not a hardcore Pink Floyd fan, but I have a fondness for The Wall, having a list of musicians is helpful. You might want to balance the columns, maybe make three columns. Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There still needs to be a source for the info. The (unsourced) edits should be reverted until we can come to a consensus. I personally find them insightful, but they are bordering on trivia. Friginator (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I used an edit summary, "trivia". It should be obvious—to anyone with half a brain—why a simple reversion was performed. Parrot of Doom 11:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You used no edit summary when reverting my edits. I note that you fail again to attempt to justify your reverts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it standard practice to credit personnel for album articles? Popcornduff (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about standard practice. FA Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band does it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You know perfectly well why I reverted your edits. Stop trying to look more stupid than you are. Parrot of Doom 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to overlook that I pointed out that you didn't say why you reverted me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom, could you take a break from insulting other editors for a moment to explain why you think the contested personnel is trivial? The Manual of Style says: "Report musical and technical personnel who had some direct involvement in the creation of the recording or artwork itself. This can include performers, composers, photographers and graphic artists, painters and illustrators, liner note authors, engineers, producers, audio mixing and mastering specialists, and more." This seems to cover the personnel in question, doesn't it? Popcornduff (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Some of the personnel listed probably didn't even get payed for their involvement. Not that we'd know, since none of it is backed up with sources. There's no Wikipedia policy or precedent that justifies listing every single person who was involved in the recording. Friginator (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We certainly need sources, but I thought this was an argument about whether this information is trivial. Popcornduff (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me turn that question around. If the additional "musicians" involvement was notable, why did the band not credit them? In any case, as someone else has said, none of it is cited, and I very much doubt that anyone here is going to spend several hours finding reliable sources for all this new information. I'm certainly not going to. Parrot of Doom 07:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That question is a red herring. I don't recall you being asked to find sources; you dint remove (from the little information you gave) the material for lack of sources, some of the material is already sourced, and the unsourced material can be tagged as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"and the unsourced material can be tagged as such." - in other words, you can't be bothered to source it so you'll tag it and hope someone else will. And judging by the number of articles on Wikipedia that are either shit or very shit, nobody ever will. So no, that isn't going to work for me. Parrot of Doom 15:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"none of it is cited, and I very much doubt that anyone here is going to spend several hours finding reliable sources for all this new information" in other words, you can't be bothered to source it so you'll remove valid, and valuable content; and alienate equally valuable new editors. Oddly, what works for you isn't an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, another idiot comes along to claim that those who strive to keep articles in good order are somehow frightening away new editors. Uncited content is not "valuable", anyone who suggests it is simply doesn't have the first clue what they're on about. And with your recent comments, I'm forced to consider if anything you've had published could ever be considered reliable. But worry not, because this is the last reply you'll ever receive from me on any topic on Wikipedia. I no longer have the inclination to deal with arseholes like yourself. The stench of idiocy is just too offensive. Parrot of Doom 08:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem like a really cool person. :) Popcornduff (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This took about 10 seconds to find and seems to cover most of the additional musician credits and the book's author is already cited dozens of times in the article. Piriczki (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• If the material can be sourced properly, I think it should be added/kept in the article. For an album this significant, people who worked without being credited in the liner notes is of even more interest. Far from trivia. I also find the personal insults of the person trying to remove this material to be off-putting and distracting from the issue at hand, I hope that behavior ceases hereinafter. Montanabw^(talk) 06:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Do what you like with it. I'm removing the article from my watchlist. I had thoughts of working it up to FA but if people would rather read uncited trivial rubbish with the occasional factoid, then knock yourself out. Parrot of Doom 09:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Add mention of "Is There Anybody Out There?" live album

I think this article should also mention the Is There Anybody Out There? The Wall Live 1980–81 album. Maybe in the Release section along with the other live versions? ITAOT is a version of The Wall, along with the others. — Molly-in-md (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What Shall We Do Now? mistake

Although "What Shall We Do Now?" is mentioned as a track intended for the album but dropped at the last minute, there is no mention of it and its lyrics still appearing on the packaging of early editions, unless I've missed it but I don't think so.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Recording in Los Angeles

This is what the article tells about the recording in Los Angeles: "Over the next two months the band used Cherokee Studios and The Village Recorder in Los Angeles. A plan to work with the Beach Boys at the Sundance Productions studio in Los Angeles was cancelled. For a week in November they worked at the Producers Workshop, also in Los Angeles." The source used is Povey. However in Fitch & Mahon (p. 51-55 and 58-59) it says recording started at Cherokee Recording Studios in Los Angeles. September 6. September 12 recording moved to Producer's Workshop. This is backed up with pictures of the studio logs (p. 50 and 56-57). Later in the book a complete list of the Los Angeles studio sessions is placed under each time. (p. 71-74, 76, 78, 81-84, 86-89, 92, 94-97, 99, 103, 105, 107-109, 111, 113). Only had The Thin Ice, Another Brick 1 and 2, Goodbye Blue Sky and The Show Must Go On had production done in Cherookee, the rest was in Producer's Workshop. The Village Recorder isn't mentioned. I don't want to dismiss Povey's book, but the pictures of the studio logs and the complete lists of the LA sessions in Fitch & Mahon are quite trustworthy to me. Is it best to tell in the article that two reliable sources tell a different story, rely mostly on Povey or rely mostly on Fitch & Mahon? Floyd (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This article uses Unreliable Source to add Progressive Pop into the genres

I don't believe this album should fall under progressive pop genre sense, the cited source is non-official and the album That not contain Pop elements, besides having a hit Single Sir James H. Westwood (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sir James H. Westwood, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Please note that this article is currently having a problem. Wikipedia has occasional run-ins with what we call "genre warriors" who changes genres in group/album/song articles based on what they think the genre should be considered.

Wikipedia does not use individual editors' opinions. Instead, we report what reliable sources say. Most new editors who run afoul of this because they don't understand what we do quickly get the message and either start to follow the rules or move on. A few, however, don't seem to understand that we are a community, communities have rules and communities that wish to stay intact must enforce those rules. After receiving several warnings and continuing to make changes that do not meet our standards, these editors are briefly blocked from editing. When they return, if they still don't get the message, they receive longer and longer blocks. Eventually, they are permanently banned from editing. Some of them continue to edit anyway, either anonymously, with newly created accounts or both. (We call this "sockpuppetry".) When we find a sockpuppet, we revert their edits, block the accounts and ignore them (WP:RBI).

This article has currently drawn the interest of one of these editors. For the past 2 months or so, they've been trying to remove "progressive pop" from the list of genres. At this point, one of two things generally happens: 1) The editor pretends they are not a sockpuppet of a banned genre warrior and makes whatever arguments they feel will get their way. We listen to them for a bit, talk to them, open a sockpuppet inestigation, block them, revert their edits and ignore them. 2) They know #1, having been through it repeatedly and simply move on to vandalizing other articles.

Unfortunately, that's all we have.

The source in question says "progressive pop". That is not disputed. Whether or not it is "correct" in your or anyone else's opinion is not relevant here.

The source, popmatters.com, is widely used on Wikipedia. As they have paid writing staff subject to editorial review, they are considered a reliable source here. To that end, they have been discussed several times at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and found to be a reliable source.[4] Other than some fans who simply may not like the "pop" label on a band they like, I don't see a problem here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

After a quick look, it seems I was wrong. This article has actually drawn the interest of a particularly thick-headed vandal and has been problematic for much longer than two months. Maybe I should just reopen the sock case now. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of this. Sir James H. Westwood (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mqv3Gpco to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTop100
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6S9qCrbnF to http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupageshttpwww.aria.com.aupageshttpwww.aria.com.auALBUMaccreds2011.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100501065534/http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php to http://www.cria.ca/cert_db_search.php
• Added archive http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote

I removed the link to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial from the hatnote, as this is one of many other "walls" that can be found through the link to the disambiguation page; it can't be that closely linked with the phrase, given that its article's lead section doesn't even mention "The Wall" as being a common name for the subject. Jellyman (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309184426/http://music.ign.com/articles/706/706219p4.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/706/706219p4.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTop100
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/Results.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aria.com.au/pages/httpwww.aria.com.aupageshttpwww.aria.com.aupageshttpwww.aria.com.auALBUMaccreds2011.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160716112934/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the lead

I trimmed the lead, but was reverted. It contains unnecessary details and has prose problems. Here are some examples:

• It jumps around in coverage. In order, it covers: date of release; critical reception; sales; film adaptation; plot; recording; sales; recording; tour; The Final Cut; sales; critical reception. Related information should be grouped, and placed in logical order.

• We have an entire paragraph dedicating summarising the plot. This is way too much for the lead; we need a sentence at most. Look at how film articles do it, such as The Last Jedi: "The plot follows Rey as she receives Jedi training from Luke Skywalker, in hopes of turning the tide for the Resistance in the fight against Kylo Ren and the First Order."

• The band, who were then struggling with personal and financial difficulties, supported the idea. It's not clear what their personal and financial difficulties have to do with them supporting the idea. Additionally, if we don't say they supported the idea, readers won't assume they were against it.

• "Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2" became the band's first and only chart-topper If it was their only chart-topper, then we know it was also their first. Also, "chart-topper" is kind of colloquial Top of the Pops-like language. (And which chart is it talking about?)

• The Wall was the last studio album released with the 11-year-spanning line-up of Waters, Gilmour, keyboardist Rick Wright, and drummer Nick Mason. It was not released with this lineup; it was recorded with the lineup. Using "11-year-spanning line-up" as a compound adjective is pretty clunky. Popcornduff (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint, I see you have once again restored most of the previous version of the lead, reinstating most (all?) of the problems I explained above. Could you address this?

I think it's important to point out that it's not that the lead is too long in itself. It's that it contains information that just isn't appropriate or useful for the lead, regardless of length. Popcornduff (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not see this post on the talk page. The lead is supposed to be summarize the most "important" (i.e. most contextually significant) aspects of the work. We seem to differ on what that is. Surely we have to mention the album's lyric content (we should also mention the music style...), the influence of Syd Barrett, and the fact it was recorded under tense conditions? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough that you missed the post - I didn't ping you in it, and I should have done. Sorry.

The lyrical themes and tense recording conditions were already mentioned in my version. The musical style doesn't seem to be covered in either version, but I think it's sufficient to say it's a rock album; perhaps we could mention some of the less conventional instrumentation, such as the use of strings and brass. I don't object to mentioning Syd.

I'm still waiting to hear your responses to the specific problems I raised. IMO the biggest problems are the wonky chronology (related information not grouped) and the overlong plot summary. Perhaps we could restore my version and expand some of it (such as the Syd part) from there? Popcornduff (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint No further comments? Popcornduff (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The opening paragraph, per MOS:FIRST, is supposed to act as a kind of "lead for the lead". It should acknowledge that it's a well-regarded and extremely successful concept album, and the film adaptation too, since it's as famous as the album itself.

• Perhaps I'm misreading, but I see nothing in MOS:FIRST to support what you're saying. The first paragraph of a lead is not, as far as I know, supposed to contain facts covered later in the lead. Popcornduff (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, I defer to Sgt. Pepper's, which has a perfect lead all-around.

• I immediately see a number of problems with that lead, including redundancies such as "On release, the album was lauded" (we can presume it wasn't lauded before release). I appreciate that it's a FA, but I've written and reviewed enough FAs by now to know this does not mean they're flawless. But I will save my criticisms of that article for that article's talk page. Popcornduff (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have as much strong feelings toward the structure of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs, except that there's not a detail I would omit. If you can "tighten" it up, by all means do, but I'm strongly against throwing out details like the album's core themes, or that the band was basically disintegrating. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think the current lead actually covers that stuff appropriately. Summarising a plot is not the same thing as summarising themes. And again, this sentence - The band, who were then struggling with personal and financial difficulties, supported the idea. - doesn't give the reader useful information: what does these difficulties have to do with the recording of the album? How is this connected to them supporting the idea? It needs to be removed or explained properly. Popcornduff (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What on earth?!?

What on earth does this mean? Joe Porcaro, Blue Ocean & 34 others? It doesn't make sense. If you don't mind, I'm going to erase that. Okay? Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.198.189 (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Cover with text explanation

I think that many readers coming to the article will be confused to see that the album cover has no text. I would argue that the version writing the album and artist name in the middle is much more widely known - it is used for digital download and streaming releases, and a google image search for "Pink Floyd The Wall" returns only this article's image as the blank wall, for the first handful of results. From an onlookers point of view, it may seem like only the Wikipedia article omits the text, and while it is explained in the Artwork and packaging section, I think it is necessary to write a brief explanation in the caption.

As for the explanation, the text was physically placed onto the original vinyl releases as a sticker, so it is not as if it was only added on re-releases. Speaking of re-releases, a 2012 box set cover was added to the infobox recently, and was since removed for copyvio along with the other arbitrarily added re-release covers on Pink Floyd album articles. These covers are not recognised, nor expected from readers, and the original covers are perfectly sufficient in illustrating the article. However, part of me wants to argue that this album is an exception, though the cover with text is far too similar to the original cover and would likely fail the WP:NFCC policy.

So, since brief captions have been written and removed in the past, I figured I would seek consensus here on the talk page. I am justifying this in belief that this is a smaller scale case of WP:ASTONISH, but for the expected album cover, instead of the expected article title or whatnot. Lazz_R 23:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No information for CD release

I don't know if the track listing for the LP's is Disc 1, Side 1 & 2 are on Disc 1 of the CD and Disc 2, Side 1 & 2 are on Disc 2 of the CD. It would be nice if this information was also included. Drlambert100 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Singles

Run Like Hell got to number 15 in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.71.17.254 (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

should we add doug walker's album to the adaptations section?

in 2019, doug walker, aka the nostalgia critic, released a review/parody of the movie "pink floyd - the wall". there is also an album that has the music and some skits from the review. should we add it to the adaptations section of this page? Dvdmovies123 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Empty Spaces is missing

The article for the song "Empty Spaces has gone missing and I'm wondering where it went. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minemaster1337 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Minemaster1337: On 6 December, User:Binksternet changed the "Empty Spaces" article to a redirect in these edits. GoingBatty (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that someone made every track on the album into its own article, even though a bunch of the tracks are only discussed in relation to the album or concert performance. A few more could be turned into redirects, such as "Bring the Boys Back Home". Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • @GoingBatty: please no