Talk:Pink Floyd

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014

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

This has come-up numerous times before and the consensus here is that is looks daft. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Genre in the infobox

I would like to reach a consensus here on changing the genre in the infobox to just "Rock". Wikipedia's policy, after all, dictates that the infobox be as simple and concise as possible. The musical style section can then elaborate (with reliable sources) on what specific genres Pink Floyd plays. Twyfan714 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Its fine the way it is and we don't need to waste anymore time debating a couple of words in the infobox. Pink Floyd were a complex and versatile group and there is no need to reduce their musical output down to one or two generic labels. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - few bands that deserve so many genres. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that other bands like Queen and The Beatles, bands who were also very "complex and versatile" in their style, already have this approach. Twyfan714 (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you may be right, It might at least stop lots of toing and froing. Some bands stick to one obvious genre in everything they do, while others manage to produce all sorts of songs/albums across a number of genres. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! By having the genre in the infobox be general, it reduces arguments like this from occurring. As I said above, the musical style section can then be more specific on what styles/subgenres Pink Floyd fits into. Twyfan714 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that a general agreement/ policy change is needed, so Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force is probably the best place to raise it for discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Simplifying the genre to just one category (or, if I had my way, removing it completely) would cut down on the number of genre disputes, thereby saving time that could be spent discussing more important issues. I don't think this is the most urgent thing in the world, especially since this page is semi-protected, but in my experience, the more genres you put in the infobox, and the more specific they are, the more new editors are tempted to add their own. Friginator (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO, limiting the field to just one or two genres will not cut down on genre wars; it will exacerbate them. Inclusivity is the way to go if you want to reduce conflicts, since most genre warriors want to see genres represented, not removed. Also, this is against WP:CONSENSUS, as editors at each individual article decide these matters, which should not be unduly influenced by any overriding agenda. Local consensus will determine whether to include one, two, or four or more genres depending on the editors at each individual article. The idea that we should omit psychedelic rock here is absurd. Rock does not accurately represent all groups that played rock music. One could argue that hip hop is a subgenre of rock. Should we change all the hip hop articles to rock? Anyway, virtually all of the articles in question are popular music, so if we really wanted generality we would put popular music in every music article infobox that is not about classical and be done with this never-ending time-waster. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Pink Floyd are very well documented as at first a psychedelic band (Which is undoubtful), and later a progressive rock band. Rock/Pop is more a definition for catchy three minute verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus / 4-chord songs. The Beatles generally fit this label, and Queen is Glam/Stadium Rock, the same as the likes of Elton John, Billy Joel, or even the Scorpions. I do not support dumbing down our approach because of ill-informed arguments as to what genres a band qualifies as without any reasoning for the genres applied and often no knowledge of what defines certain genres. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

GabeMc and Floydian, you both raise some very good points, but let's look at the flip side: The more specific the genres are in the infobox, the more likely trivial arguments begin on them. For example, one could ask how many songs by Pink Floyd need to be sourced as, say, hard rock before that respective genre is put into the infobox. Other arguments spring up about what order should the genres be in (should psychedelic rock come before or after blues rock; which was the more prominent genre Floyd played, etc.). This is a very slippery slope that ultimately takes the focus off of more important things in the article, as Friginator said. Plus, if you were to ask the average person on the street what genre Pink Floyd played, they would say Rock. I'm not saying that provides much weight here, but a random person only a little familiar with Pink Floyd might not even know what Progressive rock is, but they know what Rock is. Now, there is definitely a limit on how general the infobox should be, at least in my opinion. Indeed, having every artist of popular music listed as such, as GabeMc said, is misleading as popular music covers everyone from Lady Gaga to Slayer. I would say that if there is a subgenre that is enduring enough to where it spawns numerous subgenres of its own, and is readily identifiable to people (I'm thinking mainly of Heavy metal and Punk rock), then it is acceptable for it to be included in the infobox, again, in my opinion. I have brought this up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force. You can weigh in on the discussion here. Twyfan714 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Rock can be used to describe everyone from Billy Joel to Nirvana, but obviously those two artists are world's apart in terms of sound. I'll reiterate my point that this decision should be made at each individual article. So it doesn't really matter what's determined at WikiProject Music/Music genres task force, because local consensus trumps anything "decided" at a project page. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

True, it should be made at each individual article and not a WikiProject, "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right." Bringing this to a WikiProject's attention does not necessarily warrant a universal consensus if there is opposition, but it does help in bringing the issue to light. Yes, Billy Joel and Nirvana are two different artists, but specifics on their genres can be fleshed out in the musical style section. We could even put a "see musical style" link in the infobox after Rock, if that is what concerns you. The musical style section, with reliable sources, is the proper place to show what specific genres an artist falls into because there is more space to do that. To list all the genres an artist fits into in the infobox is both time consuming, and it could confuse the reader, depending on the amount of genres, as to what the artist's actual sound is. Twyfan714 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is why there are no strict guidelines regarding infobox genres; editors disagree about what constitutes an appropriate level of detail for the infobox just as I disagree with you. There is nothing time-consuming about adding 4 to 6 words to an infobox and there is nothing time consuming about leaving 4 to 6 in an infobox; what's time-consuming are editors who are obsessed with minutia-based debates like this one. Your argument that what's explained in the infobox can be explained in the prose is self-evident, since nothing should be in an infobox that isn't already described in the prose. Why have record labels, release or active dates, or members? More genres means more information and a couple of words are nothing to be concerned about in terms of brevity. This article is 12,000 words long, so a few more in the infobox isn't hurting anyone, but it is conveying more information than just rock would. Hence the term infobox. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per GabeMc, "if it's not broken....". Mlpearc (open channel) 18:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So if Pink Floyd is sourced as doing one song in the genre of, say, country, then that should warrant inclusion in the infobox? I'm not trying to put you down, I'm just curious as to how far you guys are willing to go. Twyfan714 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Its case-by-case and in that case country would not gain consensus even if several of their songs were accurately described as such. I don't think you can find any reliable sources that describe Pink Floyd as a country band, which is what you would need to add country to the infobox here. Local consensus handles these types of issue quite well and any persistent genre warriors are dealt with locally. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Also those individual songs can be dealt with accordingly. Pink Floyd as a whole may be phych/prog, but certainly when you look at Meddle, they've got some Blues and Country influence. Meanwhile, The Wall is Rock Opera, and The Final Cut is... well... I guess whatever genre Leonard Cohen would be haha! But in the scope of an album, adding those genres isn't out of the question. However, on the scope of the band as a whole, it just doesn't make sense. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's reach a compromise: I agree with you that being too general (ie. Listing Pink Floyd as popular music) is bad, because it doesn't give the reader any kind of idea what music Pink Floyd play. I also think that infoboxes on songs should be more specific, or at least more lenient, because it is unlikely for a song to have multiple genres within it (Bohemian Rhapsody being a rare exception). As for albums, I could really go either way. You agree with me that having several songs within a certain genre is not necessarily enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox. You say that the infobox should be a summary of the article, and I agree. Since a summary is shorter than the actual body of text it is summarizing, would you not agree that Rock is an accurate summary of the music Pink Floyd played? I mean, we can argue all day about whether blues rock or hard rock warrants an inclusion, but Rock puts that argument to rest as those are subgenres of it. To further my argument, there are sources labeling Queen for example as " progressive rock, glam rock, hard rock, heavy metal, pop rock, psychedelic rock, blues rock and dance/disco." Listing all of those genres would be redundant as Rock (imo) is an accurate summary of that article. Twyfan714 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Compromise? If you want to make a change to this article then build a consensus with a convincing argument, but this isn't a negotiation. Tell me again how this is intended to save time. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)