Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Why must an unreleased EMI remaster be mentioned?

Would somebody mind explaining for me why its so important to "announce" that EMI are remastering this album? Why not wait until their remaster has been released/reviewed, at which point we can judge its suitability for inclusion in this article? We're not a source of news. Parrot of Doom 15:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why we wouldn't mention it at all. This is more than a simple remaster. There are six discs for this album alone in the Immersion version. No, we don't have any reviews yet but seeing as how this is the biggest release (yes, it's several releases over a few weeks but it's essentially all one huge release) in the band's history (bigger than the Shine On box set which didn't include unreleased material or band interviews) it bears at least some mention in the article. I realize that we're not a news source but, as I said in my edit summary, we have full articles on things that haven't happened yet (Olympics, the Super Bowl, films, books, government summits, etc) so why wouldn't we at least mention this release in this article? Dismas|^(talk) 16:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been released yet? Parrot of Doom 16:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Professional reviews in infobox

Can someone pls explain why User:Parrot of Doom removed the professional reviews from the infobox, as he/she seems unable/unwilling to do so. I searched the talk page archives as he/she suggested, but could find nothing on the subject. Thanks. 81.83.137.238 (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But then again, never mind: I am no longer interested.81.83.137.238 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I am interested. The infobox gives a useful summary of reviews. I'd like to see a good explanation for why it has been deemed unnecessary. KidCanary (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The reviews section also gives a useful summary of reviews, if, that is, people can be bothered to read them. The explanation as to why a separate floating box is unnecessary is that it duplicates information already in the article, and is ugly. Parrot of Doom 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The reviews section doesn't give anywhere near as clear a summary as the infobox does/did (not to mention the fact that there isn't even a clear reviews section on this article). As for duplicate information, the remaining infobox contains plenty of that. The recording date, genre, length, chronology of albums, etc. is all available elsewhere on the page - Surely, we should delete that too? KidCanary (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox album no longer contains a field for reviews. That field has been superseded by Template:Album ratings which is placed in the reception section of album articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body#Critical reception. Piriczki (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

...which as a separate entity is both ugly and unnecessary, and a prime example of some users' belief in shiny graphics over content. Parrot of Doom 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's no more unnecessary than the remaining infobox is. There is absolutely no good reason for them to be removed. KidCanary (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a rather weak argument. Just because you disagree with a point of view does not mean that point of view does not exist, or that those opinions are invalid. You haven't really given any reason for the inclusion of such an infobox other than that it apparently offers a "clear...summary". That may be beneficial to people who haven't read anything other than Peter and Jane books, but I prefer to cater for readers who take the time to sit down and fully read an article. A group of gold stars alongside little names isn't something that's going to help those readers. Infoboxes, generally, are rather pointless chuff, designed by people who lack the willingness or ability to write a decent article. Why do you think they're being phased out of Album infoboxes? Parrot of Doom 19:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it provides a clear and easy to find summary of reviews is a good enough reason to keep it on the page. They also make it easier for people to find a link to a full review should they wish to read one. The more detailed summaries in the main text are useful as well, but often get buried and are hard to find and read. Infoboxes are certainly not 'pointless chuff', they serve as a useful tool to go alongside the main article, and make it easier to find certain facts about an album without having to dig through the main text. KidCanary (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, there are people who browse Wikipedia that are so lazy, they can't be bothered to read the relevant section of an article to find the information they require (although why they didn't just google for reviews, I don't know). Instead, to cater for their needs, you'd rather they be presented with a floaty little box and a bunch of links. If that's the case, it's clear we'll never agree. Parrot of Doom 22:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just about laziness. The review summaries in the main text are often not clearly marked, and get buried amongst other things. Sometimes people just want to take a quick look at review scores to see how well something was received, and the infobox serves that purpose. Ideally the review scores would have just been left in the main infobox, because it looked far better, but for whatever reason it's been decided that that was unacceptable. KidCanary (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Participants in this discussion might find enlightenment on the following Wiki-page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Moving infobox reviews into article space. Best. 81.83.132.137 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)