Talk:Pink Floyd

This article uses British english dialect and spelling. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

• February 2004-February 2006
• February 2006 - May 2006
• May 2006 - July 2006
• July 2006 - December 2006
• January 2007 onward
• Archive 6

FAQ

• "Active or split up?" (2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
• "Album naming?"
• "Album sales?" (2)
• "Architectural Abdabs?"
• "Former members?" (Klose, Waters)
• "Goth?"
• "In popular culture?" (2)
• "Singular/plural, PF is/are?" (2, 3)
• "Spelling?"
• "Syncs/Wizard of Oz?"
• "The Pink Floyd?"
• "Trivia article?"

Personnel chart vs. list

I didn't like the chart at first glance (my usual "conservative" bias at WP, I guess!) but tried to fix it up so its content matches the previous list, and also did some formatting and style fixes. I listed most of the things I changed in the edit summary, but had no room to state the biggest change: merging "lead guitar, vocals" and "guitar, vocals" into one column. While it's true that Syd joined as rhythm guitarist while Bob Klose remained lead guitarist, it's quite likely Syd took on some lead duties before Bob left. If that can't be determined for certain, we should not distinguish between the two. Also, in the brief time Syd and David were in the group together (a period of about 3 weeks) (correction: article says January to April 1968), David's role was to replace Syd in the live version of Pink Floyd, while Syd was to have continued as lead guitarist in the studio. Therefore assigning one as lead guitarist and the other as second guitarist is inaccurate.

My changes do not indicate a vote in favour of the chart over the list, but I thought it should be fixed up so we can make a fair decision about keeping it. It's not bad, but is it necessary or helpful? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed a problem: Bob Klose was never a vocalist. How do we address this without making a separate vocal column? And can we credit Wright or Waters as vocalists before 1967? I have seen no evidence that they were vocalists in those years. Also, I really don't want to rehash old arguments over who was officially the Pink Floyd vocalist after Syd. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

--While I thought the personel list itself was very accurate, I find that personel charts for bands with many members allow the reader to see not only who was a member when in the band just as easily was with a list, It allows for a more intunitive mental integration of the evolution of the band itself. For those not familiar or partially familiar with the band, viewing only a list does not necessarily facilitate these readers in quickly figuring out who played with who when.

I suppose there are some friendly points I'd like to make about the advantages of such a chart where the role of each member is more casually defined. While I feel that specificity of what each member was doing when is generally good to include when possible, some details were yet left out of the original list. For example, David Gilmour had been known in later years to play bass in the studio. If we are to be sure to mention Waters' guitar playing in the early years, should we not mention Gilmour's bass playing on "The Division Bell," or for that matter Wright's playing of the saxophone in the earliest days? I would recommend that each member be allocated under a general category of their role in the band's history in the chart (Ex. Roger Waters-bass and vocals) even if he did not sing in the earliest years that his block happens to intersect, in order to avoid the chart becoming too splintered and crazy. Of course I'm flexible about it and only seek to improve this article and any other I contribute to on Wikipedia.

Another thing I'd like to discuss is that, for a band that was briefly a 5-piece, mostly a 4 piece, and at times down to 2 or three members, it's only natural for a reader who is interested in learning about Pink Floyd to wonder who was filling in the gaps in the later years. That is why I mentioned hired people like Kamen, Levin, Pratt, and Renwick. Not that we have to include everyone who has ever played with Pink Floyd, but I think that a new reader may wish to know who was playing bass in PF after Waters left, or who was playing keyboards amidst Wright's firing on the "Final Cut" album. A big empty space sort of implies that Pink Floyd didn't have a bass player after 1985, which is simply untrue. They did, they just decided it was not in their financial/professional best interests' to make that person an official member. If the article is to be informative, why not leave these in to flesh out the picture for the reader. I left them linkless and with "(hired)" to differentiate them from members of Pink Floyd Ltd. The reason I used 1981-1983 and 1986 as dates is because Mason is on the record in his book as saying he was sure that Waters felt his time in PF was over after the FInal Cut record, and Gilmour was not sure as to his desire to continue Pink Floyd until December 1986.

-chrisacc82

Without commenting on the whole discussion, I'd like to say that such an elaborate description would really belong in a new article, such as List of Pink Floyd band members. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I understand your reasoning, but it is not consistent with other group articles. Personnel lists generally show only official memebers. We have already determined that Richard Wright should not be listed as a member during the recording of A Momentary Lapse of Reason because he was merely "hired" at that time. Dates for people joining and leaving are the official dates, as determined in previous discussions on this page, and should not be changed without re-opening discussions. As for gaps in the chart, they are an accurate portrayal of the group's official membership, and are explained by the main article's text. I am also opposed to showing band members playing various minor or non-typical instruments, as this is against standards not only at Wikipedia, but everywhere. For example, all of the Beatles were multi-instrumentalists, but virtually every personnel list shows their "official" duties as lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bass, and drums.

That gets us back to the problem of vocalist after Syd. (And by the way, before Syd, the article mentions a vocals-only member who is not shown on the chart at all. Do we want to consider adding him now to fill this slot? Before making any decision, we need to discuss and reach consensus on this page. Every aspect of the Pink Floyd article has been discussed and agreed upon in the past, and we can't go making content changes together with format changes without prior discussion. That's a big problem with this change: the format forces us to consider some minor content changes to make it work, and we shouldn't be doing that. Anyway, back to the vocals...) Maybe we should exclude vocals altogether, or at least for after 1968. But that may not look right. In choosing who to list, note that some people are of the opinion that Gilmour was the only person who should be considered the "regular" vocalist, some feel it was both GIlmour and Waters, and some say we should credit Gilmour, Waters and Wright. I think the way it was shown in the list format satisfied (nearly) everyone (showing "vocals" rather than "lead vocals" for everyone except Syd), but I'm not sure the chart format won't re-open the discussion.

If we can't come up with a quick solution, we may have to revert to the list format while we discuss it further. That doesn't mean the chart is rejected, just deferred.

Regarding Elizabeth's suggestion: For a band who were around as long as Pink Floyd, their personnel changes weren't too complex, and I don't think we could justify a separate article just for this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

--Fair enough. I DO see what you are saying. To make such a chart 100% accurate in all respects demands some splitting hairs and content changes, which I'd be willing to help out on and discuss if we want to go further on it. Certainly I was not looking to reopen any settled discussion that was difficult to resolve in the first place. In making the personel chart, I was trying to offer a more streamlined way of looking at the band's history, not a more complex one. Again, I also agree we should not be looking to describe any instrument that any member ever played - I was trying to play devil's advocate to point how crazy that could get. Perhaps we can reach some consensus on it. If not, I agree we could go back to the list. Wright, Waters, and Gilmour shared the vocal duties as far as I know after Syd left.

As far as consistency with other Wikipedia rock band articles goes, few fans of the band Yes would think of the musicians Tom Brislin, Benoit David, and Oliver Wakeman as official members, but they are included in that article's chart by Wikipedia editors other than myself, complete with blue links as if the band had recognized them as offical members. Studious fans will recognize that they are not. But I can see the reason they were included was so as to not leave holes in the band's history just because the band didn't wish to extend full membership. I feel I made the PF chart more accurate than this Yes chart by differentiating who is considered an official member of Pink Floyd and who is not, and probably someone should make a similar distinction on the Yes page. I DO think we should have some graphical means of seeing the group's history and the contributing members to Pink Floyd in the historical context to the official members.

--chrisacc82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.118.147 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not certain it's necessary to show session musicians who filled in the "gaps". Some non-gap musicians (saxophone and guest vocalists) are more notable. Also, if we're considering the live version of Pink Floyd, they had quite a list of on-stage musicians and this would make the table quite large.

As for the the issue about vocals, let me think about it some more. There must be a solution, and I might propose something on a sandbox page. I'm not against leaving the table in the article for a little longer. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please also consider the accessibility of the table format for this information. It's not good,. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the link you provided re. accessibility, it seems to be saying to use substitutions for a few things we are using, such as "!" to mark a row heading. Does this mean your concerns can be addressed with a minor coding change? If so, please do fix it; I haven't worked with table coding except to set something up via trial and error (which is what I did when I edited the table). The article also mentions the problem of voice browsers trying to scan tables, but if the table really does add visual clarity, that may justify its use, and the article does not come out against tables. If you have other concerns, let us know. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the chart could like with vocals in a separate column. What do you think?

Years	Vocals	Guitar	Keyboards	Bass	Drums
1964		Bob Klose Roger Waters	Richard Wright		Nick Mason
1964–1965	Syd Barrett	Bob Klose Syd Barrett		Roger Waters
1965–1968	Syd Barrett Roger Waters Richard Wright	Syd Barrett
1968		Syd Barrett David Gilmour
1968–1981	David Gilmour Roger Waters Richard Wright	David Gilmour
1981–1985	David Gilmour Roger Waters
1985–1987	David Gilmour
1987–1994			Richard Wright

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

--i think this is a very good chart you have made, Knight Thank you for taking my idea seriously enough to try two new versions of it for the sake of improved readibility and information. Personally, I would vote for it above even the one I made. I was not considering voice browsers. Ultimately we should go with the format that most people who look at this article want. I'm glad for the sake of the article that a regular editor of it would take the chart idea into consideration. Chrisacc82 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)chrisacc82

One more concern: Shouldn't we put David Gilmour under bass for the 1987-1994 era? Chrisacc82 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.160.223 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

He isn't credited for bass on Momentary Lapse. He is on Division Bell, but so is a session musician. I doubt he played bass in concert. Do we know if he played a lot of bass on Bell in comparison to the other musician? If not, I don't think we can consider it one of his main instruments. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess he played even more bass before Waters left. "One of these days" and "Hey you" come to mind as prominent examples. He played more synth and keyboards in 1987/94 for sure.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew King, Blackhill

The articles Andrew King (music manager) and Blackhill Enterprises are both under-developed stubs. Please help to expand them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Early names for the band

I have removed the recent addition of two names for Pink Floyd before they were Pink Floyd. We used to have "Architectual Abdabs" in the article until it was pointed out that this is a misunderstanding coming from a newspapaer article which used that phrase as its headline. The story was about how "The Abdabs" came from an architectual school background, and was not meant to state that the headline was the name of the band. It is true that this error has been printed in reference sources before. As for the other name, I've never heard of "Leonard's Lodgers", but I've seen the names that do appear in the article in many sources. Since the same source is being cited for both added names, and one of them is clearly wrong, I'm going to question the other one by association. If someone can point to another source, we can restore it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Mason states: "indeed, we used the name Leonard's Lodgers for a while" (side 20 in my 1st edition of Inside Out). It is related to Mike Leonard, they lived in his flat or house. As for the ArchAbd one, I really don't know.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 14:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I've put that part back. But I don't think it's properly referenced, and I did not add the explanation of who Leonard is. Can someone else improve it, please? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the article

(Note: I'm adding this on behalf of Willy1234x1 whose post got reverted because he over-wrote another section when adding his. The restored post is followed by my reply.)

In the article it states "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" while the band line-up says Former members for all members. As well as a lack of a part speaking of their break-up it seems inconsistent to leave are an English rock band or vice verse. - Willy1234x1

You're right. This has been discussed before, and we could not agree on whether to consider Pink Floyd in the past tense. As a compromise we have decided to consider their years of activity as a continuous working band to have ended in 1994, and therefore we have an end date in the infobox, and all members are listed as "former" as this is required by infobox rules for the members field. But the group have never formally announced their break-up, and still exist as a corporate entity (so its members are still memebers in a legal sense), and they have done three one-off performances as Pink Floyd since then. Therefore we have decided to leave the word "are" in the opening sentence, and in the personnel list. We have often seen other editors try to change the article one way or the other, and have reverted "per consensus". Please have a look over past discussions, including archives, for all the details, but be forewarned, it is a lot of reading! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be past tense. They are no longer together, with Richard Wright dying, I would have thought this would have made it even more obvious. Tom Green (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Wright was not in the official line-up on "Momentary Lapse" (although he is on the album, credited as a session musician), so a version of Pink Floyd can exist without him, and has done so. Nothing has really changed. And yes, this decision was reviewed after Wright died. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I Love You

I noticed that Water's work for the movie The Last Mimzy is not included. (At least I didn't see it.)

It's a song he recorded for the credits. There is also a feature on the DVD about the movie music and a music video.

I'm not sure if I can make changes though so someone else can!

Boredofeducation85 (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason it isn't here, and shouldn't be IMO, is that it is unrelated to Pink Floyd. Waters did the soundtrack for that film apart from PF. If anywhere, it belongs in his article and not this one. Dismas|^(talk) 04:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I just thought it might be appropriate in the 1.8 Solo work and more: 1995–present section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boredofeducation85 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Raving and drooling

Just have to get something off my chest. Hope this doesn't offend anyone. Not really proposing deleting anything at this stage, just want to get some feedback. If you were to call me a WP "deletionist" I might have disagreed in the past, but in thinking about it, there are quite a few WP articles or sections of articles relating to Pink Floyd that I would be glad to see disappear or be reduced to a short mention:

1. Dark Side of the Rainbow – Sure, it should be mentioned. But the article is clearly written by "believers" who think the syncroicity is deliberate, despite its thorough debunking, or who think it's "really keen" which is no reason to have such a detailed article about it. When I read about the exact place to drop the needle to get the optimum effect, I'm thinking these editors are way too into it to have neutral POV. I'd like to see this article flushed.
2. Publius Enigma – It's not really a widely known, widely covered pop culture consipracy theory, and nowhere near as interesting as rumoured clues about Paul McCartney being dead in the 1960s. Parts of it are real, parts of it are fake, a lot of it is unlikely and unproven conjecture, and some of it has to do with theories about hints at the Waters / rest of Pink Floyd feud, which is very unlikely to have been the subject of the puzzle (see especially recent edits in "Lost for Words"). I get annoyed having to revert an anonymous IP adding "Search more my friends, and the answer will come - P.E" (my edit summary reply: "please stop adding this crap, the game is history!") Time to reduce it all to a short mention?
3. Pink Floyd live performances and at least a half dozen articles on individual tours, all linked together via infoboxes, see Pink Floyd In The Flesh Tour 1977 for one example – Far too much information duplicating what has been said elsewhere. When it comes down to long lists of tour dates, this info is mainly of interest to bootleg collectors. I see someone has created an online database website listing all of PF's tours. The pages recently added to WP are just copying over this info. I'm not sure if it has been done by the same person(s) who created the database. But I see the articles have repetitious flag icons beside each entry to show the country, which seems to go against the advice in MOS:ICON, though maybe that's just a matter of opinion. I also see a lot of problems with these articles, for example referring to Pink Floyd as "the Floyd", which several of us have been removing from Pink Floyd articles when we come across it, but I'm reluctant to do that on pages that probably shouldn't be here at all. I do think it's great this information exists on the internet, but rather than copy it all over here, it would be better to just have an external link pointing to the existing website with all this info. It seems to me that this is exactly what external link sections are for: to point to further information that may be useful to some, but is too detailed for WP.
4. Lists of guitars in articles on David Gilmour and Roger Waters – These would not be a problem if they weren't being modified and argued over daily. If they were being taken from one reliable website or reference book, that would be fine. But there seems to be a lot of POV, which suggests much of it is uncited and unreliable. I think this is being done by guitar fanatics who want to post what they know about guitars, perhaps based on band photos. It seems to be more about guitar identification and trivia, rather than the people. I'd like to see the editors of these sections take it off to another website (perhaps it already exists), and once again, we can just give them an external link.

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond to each of your points in turn. 1) Yeah, this needs to be drastically reduced, and merged into the article on DSOTM. There is not enough content that should be, to warrant its own article. I'd be fine with an AfD. 2) Personally, I'd be fine with making it shorter and making it a section of the album's page. But since it has a fair number of references, and has survived an AfD, I don't see that happening. It certainly isn't as atrocious as is Dark side of the rainbow. 3) I'm ok with these. A lot of info, but sourced, and better than many articles on here. 4) Get rid of these. We don't need arcane lists of equipment. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on point 3 and 4. Of course it can be bether, and perhaps shorter, but I don't think deleting articles or sections is the right way to deal with problems. Floyd (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sales

Why was Floyd's total albums sales reduced from 250 to 210 million? Revan ltrl (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can point me to when it said 250. Looking back to October, it said "over 200", then was changed to "210" in December and a reference added (see reference number 1; numbers 2 and 3 say "over 200"). If you want it changed to 250, you will need to cite a source which says this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could point you to several sites stating that they've sold more than 250 million albums, some of them citing wikipedia, apparently. Revan ltrl (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/sevenages/artists/pink-floyd/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/sevenages/artists/pink-floyd/ http://www.americanroyalarts.com/catalog_search.php?p=1&cat=2&id_sub=0&id_nivel_padre=17&id_nivel3=66 http://www.dreamsville.net/?p=132 http://www.theinsider.com/news/420101_Pink_Floyd_the_Band_Most_Fans_Want_Reunited

The Beatles' article says that they've sold more than a billion records, Led Zeppelin's more than 300, though the list indicates that Pink Floyd has indeed sold more than Zeppelin, and wikipedia needs to put its act together, it has a negative attitude. The articles have to show that Pink Floyd has sold more than Led Zeppelin. Because they have.Revan ltrl (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You have to show reliable sources for your claims - currently you have a negative attitude. SCR. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Boys! Boys! Let's not use fightin' words! I suspect Revan ltrl may not understand how Wikipedia works. Anyone can contriubute to the article by changing it; Wikipedia itself does not have any "attitude" except for a desire to see that reliable sources are used. If there are sites that quote Wikipedia as saying 250M, but the Wikipedia article doesn't say that, what does that tell you? Answer: probably what Revan suggested earlier: the article used to say 250M at one time. If that's true, then it must have been changed because reliable sources had a different number: 210M. I notice at least one of the sources you gave us seems to have copied their entire write-up of Pink Floyd from Wikipedia. Other articles just mention the statistic as a "by-the-way" without saying where they got it. They probably got it from an older version of the article at WP, in which case we've been giving out bad information, and we can see the consequeces of that. So we don't want to repeat that mistake! WP doesn't "need to" show that Pink Floyd sold more records than Led Zeppelin if it hasn't been verified, and certainly can't say it just because one person wishes it were so. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously wikipedia got offended by my attitude statement and sent one of its capos to restore respect and balance. Scratch. The other guy, please check out the sources on Zeppelin's article and tell me that they're not by-the-way mentions. "You" shouldn't worry about giving out bad information (which it wasn't in this case) as much as being a total contradiction-fest.Revan ltrl (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you still don't understand how this works. Every major article has other editors watching it. Nobody assigns this to us. When you edit any article, it will be put on your watchlist by default, and you can check up on it later. Wikipedia did not "send" anyone out to respond to you. As for checking out sources, tell you what... you find some sources and quote them here, and if they appear to be credible, we will let you go ahead and change the article. Sound fair? That's how it works. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I went over to Led Zeppelin's page to present the source that posts a list which shows the best selling artists of all time, which in turn shows Pink Floyd on the eleventh spot with 210M albums sold, ahead of Led Zeppelin. Guess what, it was killed stone dead by Led Zeppelin's admin or whatever he is (but he has far more medal of honors than you, does that mean you have to obey him?) and said that it isn't a reliable source and that all current sources Led Zeppelin's article has about their sales number (300M) qualify "at this time". And to be frank, they are in the same style Pink Floyd's earlier sources who mentioned 250M were: by-the-way mentions and most likely took their information from wikipedia itself. If this isn't an impossible equation, I don't know what it is. Obviously that list isn't worth a dime, and obviously other articles (like Led Zep's) manage with the kind of sources you oppose. One thing's for sure, though. Led Zeppelin's 300M against Pink Floyd's 210M is insanely inaccurate and it shouldn't remain that way.Revan ltrl (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states both, Zep's and Floyd's sales up to date. It's as easy as that.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the Led Zeppelin talk page (since you mentioned discussing this same issue there), and it appears you are trying to play both sides of a game. I believe it was you who removed the link quoting the IFPI list of best-selling artists of all time, under an anon IP, 99.230.136.221, because the edit summary from that user contains the same style of comments you have been making here, the edit summary being: "The first source(ESC) is garbage( According to that source Mary Carey sold more than Led Zeppelin, what a joke) I removed it." (Apologies if this IP editor is not you, but I'm basing my reply on the assumption that it is.) At the Led Zeppelin page, you are trying to get this same citation established as the reliable source for quoting a different sales figure than what LZ's article currently says. I have no comment on what's happening at LZ, but if you removed the link from PF's article just out of spite, because you couldn't get it accepted at another page, that is not responsible editing.

Regarding the edit summary, statements like "garbage" and "what a joke" tell me nothing about why you feel this way, or why your point of view should override statistics. Do you think that either the IFPI, or the website quoting them, is deliberately giving false information? Or that the article contains inadvertent numerical errors? What is your basis for thinking either of these?

If you are trying to come with a reasonable, logical explanation for these figures, they seem entirely likely to me, and I can give you an explanation. Pink Floyd's music has a stronger intellectual, artistic side, not to mention a frequently dark, moody side, which may gain them critical acclaim, but perhaps not quite as much mass appeal as LZ. Frankly, if it weren't for PF's guitar solos and hard rock sound, they probably wouldn't be anywhere as near popular as they are, from their "intellecual" themes alone. So yes, it does seem reasonable that LZ might have sold more records than PF, based on mass appeal. Selling more records doesn't make them a better band, if you're into critical analysis. (Hope I haven't offended any LZ fans here!) As for Mariah Carey, she is one of the biggest artists of a generation that came after PF and LZ. I don't know what you think of her, but if you were to tell kids of the 1990s that bands of your generation were so much better, you would be in the same situation as parents of 1964, trying to steer their kids away from the Beatles, and toward Frank Sinatra. You could be right, but the kids won't listen, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect her sales could exceed classic 70s rock. Remember, these are worldwide statistics, for all countries, all age groups, all demographics. Just because the crowd you hang out with doesn't care for MC (just a wild assumption on my part!) doesn't mean it's not credible that she could have such popularity internationally. For gosh sakes, Nana Mouskouri has greater sales than the bands we're talking about, and I'll bet you're not into her music either.

The IFPI sales figures are exactly the kind of figures we are looking for as a reliable citation. It would be nice if we could point to it at the IFPI website, and to use figures more current than 2006, but I haven't been able to find any lists over there, just anti-piracy propaganda. It's possible they have published a more recent list that actually shows a sales figure of 250M for PF (and who knows, maybe even 300M for LZ). But I haven't been able to find a more recent list from any media outlet, nor from the IFPI directly. I lieu of that, the esctoday link is the best we have, and it has been restored, along with the comment that was removed: "not to be changed without new citation". A new citation was not presented, nor was the removal of this link discussed directly on this talk page before it took place, which certainly should have been done.

Finally, I see you insist on referring to fellow editors as "admins" and complaining about their alleged authority. On this page, you complained about "Led Zeppelin's admin" and his "medal of honors", whatever that is supposed to mean, and on the LZ talk page you complained about "PF's admin". This is all nonsense. We are editors trying to maintain and improve the articles according to policy. If you're looking for sympathy because you feel you're being treated unfairly, I'm sure you won't get it, because we all play by these rules, once we understand them. All you are demonstrating is that you haven't got to that stage, or reject WP's policies because they don't let you change things to the way you want. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought about the anon IP and was close to file a sockpuppet case. This is a clear attempt to disguise his identity and to gain profit from. And Mary Carey? I think she sold more DVDs than Floyd and Zep together - but I guess no CDs at all... Or did he really talk about Mariah Carey? Well, she had more Number One hits than anybody else in history - including Elvis, the Beatles etc. - and sure more than Floyd and Zep together. Most figures count records, not albums, and Mariah, the Beatles, Elvis have sold lots of singles, while Zep and Floyd were album bands - not even releasing singles (Zep) or at least hardly any (Floyd). I repeat myself: Find a reliable source incl. sales figures for both, Zep and Floyd. Anything else won't help us much. I had a quick look yesterday but didn't find anything.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 15:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I like being ignorant to wikipedia's and you admins' ways 'cause you all sound so uptight. Well, nice try explaining why Led Zep's sold more than PF, though I recommend you don't say it out loud to anyone because I laughed hard, or cried. 'Dark and moody' and whatever you said - nonsense. It isn't likely to me because LZ's best selling album (IV) has sold as much as PF's second best selling album (The Wall) with 30 million sales each, aprox, and that's a fact. Nice try, though it works better as a joke. And I didn't delete anything, apology would be accepted if you admins weren't putting so damn much effort in sounding so.. dunno.Revan ltrl (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So where are those admins? I don't see any... Zep at least sold more records than Floyd in the US as you might see here: [1] Far more I'd say. That's the best source I found. Do you have others? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you run out of answers? You're one of them, by the way. Zep has sold more in the US, about 35M more (I wouldn't call it far more), I know, but we're talking world wide sales here, and there are other parts in this world that more than make up for Floyd's album sales, Europe for example, and their stronger longevity and iconic status (they have far more fans on facebook and more often than not defeat Zep in different polls and such (I love both bands, but it's worth mentioning)). I have a source that's been used on several wikipedia articles that I hope you won't call total bullshit. It's worldwidealbums.net which lists album sales. I was wrong about Led Zeppelin IV, it has 35,5M against The Wall's 30M according to the site. Well, I added the bands' respective album sales, and here's the result: Led Zeppelin - 162,5M, Pink Floyd - 193,75M. A fairly solid lead. At least that site opposes wikipedia's statement, which is a 100M Zep lead against Floyd. Worth taking into consideration? Here's the list: Revan ltrl (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC) www.worldwidealbums.net/index.htm

Well, I am no admin and don't want to be one. So stop posting your anti-admin rubbish. I have problems with most admins myself. Your link - ehem - is also rubbish. I can't even post a link to the methods page because WP is considering it as spam. No, not really reliable at all. And even if - your 193m is not that far away from our 200/210m. So you may find a better source at least for the Zep sales if you want to change that. Or again, a reliable, up to date source for both, Zep and Floyd. Go for it! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But that site is used on several wikipedia articles as a source, dear admin. Are you saying the numbers there are made up? Because Zep's 162M are far far away from their supposed 300M. Why don't you stop nourishing wikipedia's wicked ways for a change? Go for it!Revan ltrl (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Several? Where? If you find such links just remove them (see [2]). And still you don't have even one reliable source. No need to change anything here. Please go trolling around on other talkpages. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 15:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I sense you've taken offense by this discussion, but please remain "civil", you don't want to make the wrath of almighty wikipedia surface. Well, I've looked around and found a whole new number to their sales (300M), but that's probably rubbish, but I'm gonna post them here anyway for you to butcher. But who knows, maybe one by some miracle qualifies, because Zep's sources haven't taken their info from wikipedia, no. I found two sources for 250M, one of them used on the Swedish wikipedia. Revan ltrl (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.93xrt.com/pages/2350529.php http://www.sumo.tv/watch.php?video=3510352 http://www.americanroyalarts.com/catalog_search.php?p=1&id_nivel3=66&cat=2&id_sub=0&id_nivel_padre=17 (250M) http://pinkfloyd.mobi/ http://www.lastfm.se/music/Pink+Floyd/+wiki http://www.virb.com/pinkfloyd http://www.hitzonly.com/2007/08/21/artists-claimed-to-have-sold-250-million-records-or-more/

None of these sources say where they are getting their information, and we are seeing the exact same wording over and over, so obviously they are just copying from each other. Therefore they are poor and unreliable sources to be replacing our current source which does say where their information comes from. If you yourself think some of these sources are rubbish, why are you posting them here? Why do you invite others to "butcher" them? It does sound like contempt and trolling. Regarding civility, you keep griping about Wikipedia and its users every time you post, and say things you don't mean (using sarcasm) like what you said above about the Led Zeppelin page, where you are unhappy about things happening over there, the opposite of what you say. You may have a legitimate gripe about the Led Zeppelin page, but you need to take it over there, not here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more likely they copied everything from wikipedia. And unless you want actual answers for your questions, please keep your shallow amateur analysis to yourself. And regarding my civility, I keep in line, so you don't even have to mention that, unless, of course, wikipedia requires you to blankly mention and analyse everything you just did in that insanely meaningless manner. Anyway, it seems both pages require completely different things for a source, which makes this whole thing impossible to make any sense, and keeps wikipedia in a false info-spreading state. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)