Jump to content

Talk:Pink Floyd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.1.1.63 (talk) at 14:42, 23 February 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articlePink Floyd is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articlePink Floyd has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 15, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 19, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
December 4, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

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

FAQ


GA review prior comment.

Have tagged this article becasue it's simply too long. There are main article pages for many of the albums mentioned here, less detail is required. Anything here that links to another PF related main article should just have a one paragraph summary. Measles (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy which states the maximum length of an article, and there is no requirement to use 'less detail'. I've been working to reduce its size, but it presently falls (just) within the guidelines for article size. There are also overlaps with the album articles, which I'm currently working on and expanding (right now I'm rewriting The Wall). Frankly there isn't a hope in hell of using a 'single paragraph summary' for each album, because this article deals with the interpersonal relationships between band members in a way that the album articles will not. You cannot separate, for instance, production of Saucerful of Secrets, or The Wall, or The Final Cut from those relationships. Once I'm done expanding The Wall and Animals it'll probably be appropriate to delete some of the more technical information from this article, but the personal relationships should remain. Parrot of Doom 11:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I'll remove some of the more specific technical details from the album sections, as I agree they're not really necessary. Parrot of Doom 11:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, it's 141kb, general guidelines state we should consider dividing articles over 100kb. Personally, I'm not always in favor of shortening articles, becasue it's not a paper encyclopedia, but it depends largely on subject matter, and preexisting spin-offs. Also, concision can help cut back on unnecessary verbiage, so writing style can impact on length also. Measles (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't 141kb of prose. Parrot of Doom 12:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's 141kb, simple as that, and there is a substantial amount of minutiae, which is, for the most part, superfluous; relative to level of information required by the general reader. But that is simply my opinion, we can throw it out there and see what others think if you like? Measles (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't as 'simple as that'. The guideline you have provided is a guideline to readable prose, not article size. There is not 141kb of readable prose here. Parrot of Doom 12:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you insist on laboring the distinction, looking at a version minus the infobox, notes, refs, and external links, it's still coming in at 134Kb, strip back the pix, and maybe you get it down another few kb, but whatever way you look at it, the main body of text constitutes the bulk of what's there, will still come in over 100Kb, and is the primary contributer to a potential sizing issue. Measles (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still wrong. I suggest you read WP:SIZE. Parrot of Doom 13:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wrong, your right, great!!! good luck with that : ) The article currently appears at 474 on the long articles. Measles (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit that you don't understand the relevant guidelines, especially in light of this disingenuous comment. I've explained my position quite clearly, and its a position I'm quite happy to defend. Parrot of Doom 13:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Measles, if you're going to go around taking it upon yourself to tag articles as being too long, then I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the concept of "readable prose", which is what the guidelines refer to. I make this article 83Kb of readable prose, well below your guess of 134Kb, and below the 100Kb limit at which an article almost certainly ought to be split. Consequently I have removed the tag you added. As the set of articles develops I'd expect to see some of the detail on each album transferred to the album's own article in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my bad, will be more careful in future, thanks for the input! Good luck with the article. : ) Measles (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article size currently: 

   * File size: 382 kB
   * Prose size (including all HTML code): 131 kB
   * References (including all HTML code): 127 kB
   * Wiki text: 136 kB
   * Prose size (text only): 81 kB (13875 words) "readable prose size"
   * References (text only): 18 kB

Courtesy of Dr PDA, shine on,  Badgernet  ₪  20:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hi, I come from WP:3O. Looking at the article (yours truly writing from Cambridge with Pink Floyd in the headphones, heh!) my impression is that the article, apart from the mere number of kb, could benefit of a bit more compactness, especially in descriptions of the albums. A separate article on History of Pink Floyd maybe could help maintain all of the great content making the article slimmer. Hope it helps. --Cyclopia - talk 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some details can be moved out, but overall the length provides flow between the points which would be lost unless the moving of content is done carefully.
By the way, a quick scan with DYK check provides me with 79289 characters, which is 77.43 kilobytes of prose. Well within the limitation, technically speaking. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


WOW huge article...it is so big that it does not load on my Ipod. Big technical issues here for browser limitations and upload speeds, cellular connections, etc. This article is the size of 3 normal articles. No way anyone in a third world country will ever be able to see the page if it is not cut back. Articles that are to big defeats one of the key purposes of the wikipedia project: to provide information for those that cannot otherwise afford it. The page needs trimming in size to meet criterion 4 This page is 139 kilobytes long. See Wikipedia:Article size If an article is significantly longer than 30 -> 50kb, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries. One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. (as of now the article is 17 pages) Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. Many a good GA have had substantive omissions to then to get GA level. For an article that is sufficiently complex, it could exceed the limits of WP:SIZE (+20 to 40kbs over) if fully chronicled to WP:FA standards, there will always be omitted substance when you reach GA level because of Article size limitations. Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to read it on a mobile device then access it through this service. There is nothing wrong with the size of the article. Parrot of Doom 09:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool thank you very very much for the link :) i will use this as default on my i pod from now on. As for size it is big , that is y it says when you go to edit the page This page is 139 kilobytes long, it may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. anyways best of luck to you with your GA nomination, this article is very well written.

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages: Readable prose size What to do

  • 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
  • 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
  • 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
  • 40 KB Length alone does not justify division
  • 1 KB See Wikipedia:Stub.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pink Floyd/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *YES! 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Very clear and readable. Very engaging prose.
    B. MoS compliance:
    The lead does not adequately deal with the band. There are statements, such as: "Pink Floyd's work is marked by philosophical lyrics, sonic experimentation, innovative album cover art, and elaborate live shows." where the information is not followed up in the main body of the article
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Some statements need closer citing or adjusting
    C. No original research:
    I feel comfortable the material is all sourced
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Some of the major aspects which are mentioned in the lead are not dealt with.
    B. Focused:
    Too much focus on history to the detriment of other aspects of the topic.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Appears to be neutral.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    There have been various reverts, but within expected parameters for a high profile article
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    File:Hapshash-UFO.jpg needs FUR.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


I'll take a look over the next few days and give an initial assessment. SilkTork *YES! 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depth of detail

This is a very well written and well presented article with good referencing. I haven't finished reading it yet, but a couple of concerns have come up which are worth discussing.
  • The depth of detail. There is an intense concentration of detail, and at times I wonder if there is a little too much for an encyclopedia entry. Statements such as "His first meeting with Waters had been when the latter asked to borrow a cigarette (a request Wright declined)", "Jenner traced Waters and Mason to their flat", "At the All Saints Hall they were confronted by an audience whose members were often under the influence of drugs, and who arrived with few or no expectations" seem more appropriate for a form, such as a book, where there is time and space for such incidentals, but serve to hinder a quick understanding of the essentials which is what is required for a general encyclopedia entry.

Organisation

  • Organisation of material. Chronological is a common and accepted way of presenting information. However, it should be considered if that should be almost the only way of presenting information. A chronological overview of the band's development is very welcome - though there are other aspects that could be explored, and a structure considered for how best to organise that information so a reader can get to the detail quickly and easily - that is, without having to read the entire article, especially given the length of the article.
    • I'm not particularly a supporter of categorising details in an article. I prefer the chronological format wherever possible, but I think that using album names is the best way to organise things. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the reader looking for specific information, having the material organised in an easily searchable manner is essential, and is the essence of how encyclopedias are structured. I empathise with your desire to write a chronological story, but would say that is not always the most helpful for the reader. Someone who wants specific information on the [Roger Waters David Gilmour feud http://www.google.com/search?q=roger+waters+david+gilmour+feud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a], for example, would like a useful summary in an easy to find place. Currently the dispute is spread throughout the article, and a reader has to work through a lot of irrelevant material to get at it. I understand the sense of pride one can get from shaping an article, but the article is there for the reader, so consideration of the reader's needs - even when that means perhaps shaping an article in an inelegant manner - should be an awareness ever present in all editors' minds. SilkTork *YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a good point, however the Gilmour/Waters feud isn't really so simple. The infighting was between all four, those two are most often quoted because Gilmour was the one who took over the band once Waters had left. I think that the reader might be better off looking to the individual biogs, most especially Waters (who has over time fallen out with just about everyone he's met) however I haven't yet gotten around to those. I will one day though, I promise you that. Wright will probably be the first. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider restructuring this article so that there is a fair balance between live performance, critical commentary and history. At the moment it could be renamed more appropriately History of Pink Floyd.


Live performances

  • Live performances are not covered - there is a brief mention of live performances in passing, but nothing organised and in depth. (Ah - I see, the live performances are dealt with in a different article).
    • Its a whole other article in itself. Where important, I've included details about touring (Barrett going mad, DSotM, Animals, and most importantly The Wall). I think though that the band is best known for its recorded work, rather than its live work, as most people can relate to the albums they may have in their collection. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When splitting out material into a sub-article it is useful to leave a summary behind. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Essentially, what a reader would like in an article on Pink Floyd is for the lead to give an overview of the band covering the main points, such as a short statement about the band's reputation for their live performances ("Pink Floyd's work is marked by .... elaborate live shows"). The reader might then wish to go read a little bit more about the live performances - not an entire article, but something more than the brief sentence in the lead. So they would want to go to a section in the article that deals with the live performances. If they then wish more detailed information they can leave the parent article and visit the sub-article. I just had a look at Pink Floyd live performances to see if it would be possible to bring over the lead section from that article as a summary in this one, but the lead is not adequate. It means writing up a summary from scratch. SilkTork *YES! 17:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that no problem. Give me a couple of days to sort it out. I'll create a section and summarise the links between albums and concerts, venues, and try to include how The Wall came about. Parrot of Doom 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. SilkTork *YES! 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more. As I add bits here and there, I'll join the prose up and attempt to create a summary of their 25-30 years of concerts. Parrot of Doom 14:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I've covered the major points. Take a look and see what you think. Sorry its taken a while, other articles have grabbed my attention. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

General editing

  • These are just thoughts at this stage, but there may be points, such as broad coverage and focus, which need to be considered as regards meeting the GA criteria.
    • I'd agree with this. Really, what it needs is a couple of editors like yourself to read through and make suggestions. I'd guess that about 95% or more of the article is my writing. Although this is one of the most popular pages on Wiki, with hundreds of watchers, most users make minor edits, and don't actually make the structural changes which may be required. Parrot of Doom 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is fairly typical. I often find that I can make one or two edits on an article which actually amount to over 50% of the content of an article that been in existence for five years with several hundred edits. Most edits tend to be very minor indeed! At other times I can be one of those people who drive by and make a very minor edit. I think I made some minor edits to this article a couple of years ago - if I recall, at that time (when it was a Featured Article) it said in the opening sentence that Pink Floyd was formed in Cambridge. I am willing to roll up my sleeves and get stuck in with editing this article - though that may have to wait a few days. SilkTork *YES! 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll finish reading it over the next couple of days, and then do an assessment. SilkTork *YES! 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • I'm looking at how the content matches the sources, OR, bias, etc. This tends to be a tricky aspect, and I usually pick on a handful of statements and see how they match up with the sources.
"Meddle is often considered to be the first 'definitive' Pink Floyd album" is a big statement. The source does support what is said - but I am concerned with the use of "often", as the source doesn't quite say that. None of these sources (found from the Meddle article) support the statement - [1], [2], [3], [4], though this one does - [5]. I think the statement just needs more careful wording to reflect what sources do indicate. Example: "Some reviewers have commentated that Meddle is a transitional album marking the departure from Syd Barrett's influence to the modern Pink Floyd." SilkTork *YES! 11:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This statement appears unsourced: "Internal conflicts threatened the future of the band. Waters had taken to arriving at each venue alone, and departing immediately, and Gilmour's wife Ginger did not get along with Waters' new girlfriend. On one occasion, Wright flew back to England threatening to leave the band." SilkTork *YES! 11:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blake pp252-253 Parrot of Doom 13:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Waters was invited to join the band as the tour reached Europe, but declined, later expressing his annoyance that some Floyd songs were being performed again in large venues" appears to be unsourced.
Blake p367 Parrot of Doom 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a bit more support for some of the contentious "inside" material, such as "The bassist had forbidden any members of Pink Floyd from attending his concerts" - which appears to come from Comfortably Numb — The Inside Story of Pink Floyd. A number of other sources feel it enough to simply mention Water's tour - [6] without the extra detail - and I wonder what value is being added by including it. I would rather see such contentious material rather more widely reported than from one source. SilkTork *YES! 11:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be tricky. Blake is probably the most comprehensive history of Floyd, and I haven't really spotted any glaring mistakes. Mason errs on the side of caution (understandably), and the band's latter history post-dates Schaffner's book. I only just got the Povey book this week, so I'll see what that says. Parrot of Doom 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a highly regarded book. My concern is in the selection of material from the book. I think going back to my earlier comment about having a section specially for band disputes, then selection of material which deals with internal disputes would be acceptable in such a section. But the same material is inappropriate when placed elsewhere - using comments such as "The bassist had forbidden any members of Pink Floyd from attending his concerts" when talking about the Pink Floyd tour, and when other sources do not, is pushing the dispute to the fore, and so is actually pushing hard against NPOV. What is the focus of the section? The dispute or the tour? Here is the paragraph:
Page 300 of Mason's book goes some way toward backing this statement up. I've added a note to that line, with a reference on the end of the note. Parrot of Doom 20:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early rehearsals for the upcoming tour were chaotic, with Mason and Wright completely out of practice, and realising he'd taken on too much work Gilmour asked Bob Ezrin to take charge. As the new band toured throughout North America, Waters' Radio K.A.O.S. tour was, on occasion, close by. The bassist had forbidden any members of Pink Floyd from attending his concerts, which were generally in smaller venues than those housing his former band's performances. Waters issued a writ for copyright fees for the band's use of the flying pig, and Pink Floyd responded by attaching a huge set of male genitalia to its underside to distinguish it from his design. However, by November 1987 Waters appeared to admit defeat, and on 23 December a legal settlement was finally reached. Mason and Gilmour were allowed use of the Pink Floyd name in perpetuity, and Waters would be granted, amongst other things, The Wall. The bickering continued however, with Waters issuing the occasional slight against his former friends, and Gilmour and Mason responding by making light of Waters claims that they would fail without him.[229] The Sun printed a story about Waters, who it claimed had paid an artist to create 150 toilet rolls with Gilmour's face on every sheet. Waters later rubbished this story,[230] but it serves to illustrate how deeply divided the two parties had now become.[231] The tour continued into 1988, and then 1989. In Venice, the band played to an audience of 200,000 fans at the Piazza San Marco. The resulting storm of protest over the city's lack of toilet provision, first aid, and accommodation, resulted in the resignation of Mayor Antonio Casellati and his government.[232] At the end of the tour Pink Floyd released Delicate Sound of Thunder,[233] and in 1989 a concert video—Delicate Sound of Thunder concert video in 1989.


I have boldened the bits that are not about the tour but are about the dispute. As you can see the paragraph starts and finishes with the tour, but the majority of the paragraph is about the dispute. That's too much weight given to a subject that hasn't got its own section in the article. And even within a section devoted to the dispute there would be questions raised about including a disputed (and rather trivial story) about printed toilet rolls. SilkTork *YES! 19:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of creating sections and subsections and moving things around so that articles can be organised like a bookshelf. I do not think a 'dispute' section is at all appropriate, there is simply far too much history to present this in any other way than chronologically; the disputes started during production of Wish You Were Here. That's a 10-year period you'd have to pick apart, it'd be like pulling threads from a tapestry. I think that 'spent force' as a section header is more than enough to illustrate the troubled relationships. I don't see an issue with NPOV - there are many things in each book that are not present in the other - Mason's comment about the pig in the hotel room isn't replicated in any other books (AFAIK), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. After having read the Blake book from cover to cover, I'm happy that it presents an entirely neutral biography of the band. Parrot of Doom 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

  • Overall: I feel this is an excellent article in many respects. My concerns are largely the focus of the material. The lead needs to be expanded to cover the topic and article more fully. Other aspects of the band, such as the live performances, the critical response, and the early Syd Barrett singles, need more coverage. The history should be cut back, and dates inserted into the section headings. Some minor details regarding the sourcing / statements need attention. I'll notify the nominator and significant contributors. SilkTork *YES! 11:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the article's excellence. However, I disagree that the lede needs to be expanded. After a couple minor edits, I think it is as perfect as it can be for the time being. The rest of the article has flow and is informative. Well referenced.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've added a Fair Use Rationale to [7] Parrot of Doom 17:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. SilkTork *YES! 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Focus

Each time I look at the article I am concerned at how difficult it is to navigate through the material and get a grasp of the main details. I feel that a trimming is needed to remove some material that stands in the way of the reader getting to the essentials. I also feel that it would be helpful to follow common practice and put dates on the history sub-sections. The classic line up sub-division appears too soon as A Saucerful of Secrets contains Barrett. Some consideration could be given to division of history along these lines - Origins 1963-1964 / Syd Barret years 1964-1968 19/ Transition 1968-1975 / Roger Waters years 1976-1984 / David Gilmour years 1987-1994 / Live 8 to the present. SilkTork *YES! 10:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, and isn't something I'd have a problem with. IIRC initially I had titles like 'and then there were four' and such, but another user renamed them all. Classic lineup is obviously wrong, perhaps something like "The decline of Barrett" or such? I'm slightly uncomfortable about "Roger Waters years" as Animals and The Wall contain some superb contributions from Gilmour (half of animals is Gilmour's work).
Feel free to trim anything you like - I've been doing this for a few weeks now, most recently as I've expanded the Album articles and moved things out. I'd like some of the funny stuff to remain (the pig in the hotel room, or shooting out the lights). Parrot of Doom 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the headings. See what you think. Parrot of Doom 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

happy

I'm pretty happy now that this fulfills the GA criteria. Parrot of Doom 10:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Philcha

Philcha has offered to take over this review for me, which I am very happy about. My Wikipedia access time has reduced considerably recently, and I do not wish to hold up this review any longer because I don't have the time to concentrate on what is required. Good luck. SilkTork *YES! 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

Philcha is no longer able to take over this review. I have had another close look at the article to see if in good conscience I could pass it against my understanding of the criteria; however, I feel the WP:Lead does not quite cover the topic - another paragraph would be welcome, covering such matters as the important period between Barrett's departure and the recording of A Momentary Lapse of Reason - also there would need to be more adequate coverage of some of the items mentioned in the first two sentences: "earned recognition for their psychedelic and space rock music"; "their progressive rock music"; "the use of philosophical lyrics, sonic experimentation, innovative album cover art, and elaborate live shows" (this now has a decent section - enough perhaps for GA standards, though could do with some more attention to tighten it a bit (trim for focus), and at the same time add material to cover the period between the early London shows and the In the Flesh tour). Also, the amount of material on each of the albums is more than needed for this article which is intended to be an over view of the band's career, so the article does not stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Wikipedia:Summary style is our guidance here - especially WP:DETAIL, which explains quite clearly the background to why this article needs to be trimmed. The material in this article is very good, and can be usefully moved to the respective album articles.
I empathise with Parrot of Doom's hesitation in moving the material; when I spent some time editing the article to move material I found it difficult judging which material should be moved, and also felt a sense of regret in having to reduce this article. However, we must at all times remember we are not just writing for ourselves, but for a very broad audience. The aim of providing for all readers is very well captured in WP:DETAIL, so it is not a case or "removing" the material, but of organising it in a more appropriate manner.
I have a few options now. The option of passing as a GA is not open as I have explained above. I could again try to tackle the article myself, though I have found this a quite difficult and time-consuming task, one that my present domestic situation as a house-husband makes even more difficult (my daughter demands more of my attention than any of my previous jobs!). I could ask for someone else to take over the review (passing the buck really, but a fresh person might have the energy to get things done - and may also have a different perspective to myself - while my own view is that this article doesn't meet GA criteria, another reviewer might think otherwise). I could ask for a second opinion to check if I am not being overly scrupulous. I could put this on hold for another period to see if the work I have requested above is done. Or I could fail the article.
Failing is not something I like to do. My intention on taking on a nomination is to see the article through to GA status, even if it means doing the work myself. But I am not in a position to do the work myself on this article as indicated above. It is a viable option, however.
I will put the article on hold for seven days (until December 10), and in the meantime I will seek a second opinion. SilkTork *YES! 08:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look at the article milestones, and when the article was delisted (quite rightly) from Featured status, the size and structure was acceptable. [8]. While the content and referencing needed attention, the way the article was organised was quite useful. I feel that the current organisation by album is not quite as helpful - it doesn't guide readers to the key moments in the group's history and development, nor does it highlight the significant albums. It may be that the previous structure could be combined in some way with the current structure. I do feel that very significant albums such as Dark Side, The Wall, and Piper could be given their own sections, while the other albums could be dealt with within key development sections, and some thought could be given to how those sections could be arranged.
Previous structure:
1.1 Origins: 1964–1965
1.2 Syd Barrett-led era: 1965–1967
1.3 Barrett's decline: 1967–1968
1.4 After Barrett's departure: 1968–1970
1.5 Breakthrough era: 1970–1975
1.6 Roger Waters-led era: 1976–1985
1.7 David Gilmour-led era: 1987–1994
1.8 Solo work and more: 1995–present
Current structure:
   1.1 Early years (1963–1967)
         o 1.1.1 Formation
         o 1.1.2 As "The Pink Floyd Sound"
         o 1.1.3 Signing with EMI
         o 1.1.4 The Piper at the Gates of Dawn
   1.2 Introduction of Gilmour and departure of Barrett (1968)
   1.3 Classic lineup (1968–1979)
         o 1.3.1 A Saucerful of Secrets
         o 1.3.2 Soundtracks
         o 1.3.3 Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother
         o 1.3.4 Meddle
         o 1.3.5 The Dark Side of the Moon
         o 1.3.6 Wish You Were Here
         o 1.3.7 Animals
         o 1.3.8 The Wall
   1.4 Waters-led era (1982–85)
         o 1.4.1 The Final Cut
         o 1.4.2 "Spent force"
   1.5 Gilmour-led era (1985–1994)
         o 1.5.1 A Momentary Lapse of Reason
         o 1.5.2 The Division Bell
   1.6 Classic lineup at Live 8
   1.7 Recent events
It may be a natural consequence that with the trimming of detail on each of the albums, that the sub-sections will be absorbed into the higher level sections (so Final Cut and Spent force, for example, will be dealt with under the one heading of Gilmour-led era). I have often found that getting an appropriate structure aids in both editing and reading an article. SilkTork *YES! 09:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a quick look, I don't think the current structure's too bad. The inclusion of level 3s just makes it look more cluttered in a side-by-side comparison, that's all. I've combined 1.6 and 1.7 though. As to content, there's definitely too much detail on each album and I'll try and contribute to this over the next few days, time permitting. I envisage it will naturally end up with some album subsections collapsing into single sections (for instance, without looking back at the text so this may be a bad example, A Saucerful of Secrets–Meddle). I'll also try and find material for the items you've identified as mentioned in the lead only, and then give the lead what polishing I can. Perhaps if the article can be fixed up during the hold period, you would have time to complete the review? We can revisit that aspect later anyway but perhaps you can communicate prior to feeling forced to fail, should it come to that, if you need someone else to finish the review. PL290 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the previous layout was that it assumed too much. The breakthrough era could just as easily be seen to have been 1968 onwards. I can't see David Gilmour agreeing that Waters dominated the band from WYWH onwards, and he'd be correct. The only thing I think most people would agree on is that TFC was almost a Waters solo album. I don't think there's much missing from the lead section, if anything, and I'm quite dubious of the argument that much more can be deleted from the album sections - perhaps a couple more technical details, but nothing about the interpersonal relationships. Nearly all of the band's history can be neatly summarised by what happened during the production of each album. If Pink Floyd are notable for one thing, its their refusal to grow old and tired, and their ability to keep their music fresh, and competitive with their contemporaries. I'm growing somewhat concerned that this GA procedure is becoming more like an FAC. Parrot of Doom 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PL290, I've asked for a second opinion, and will keep the review open until then at least. Parrot of Doom, I'm applying GA criteria rather than FA. For example, I am not concerned about how cites are formatted (a FA requirement) simply that there are cites. Sometimes a GA review can become demanding - it all depends on the circumstances. In the time I have been reviewing this article I think I have reviewed and passed at least seven others, failed one, and delisted another. I understand your reluctance to let go of material you have assembled for this article - it can feel like you've worked for nothing; however it is worth reflecting that there is a strong consensus of opinion that the album material needs trimming. As I have said above (and as I was doing when working on the article), the material need not be wasted, as it can be moved into the album articles. SilkTork *YES! 15:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus demands that the album sections be reduced to, say, a single paragraph each, I'll withdraw the nomination. Pink Floyd's history cannot be so easily summarised. It isn't a threat, or me throwing my toys from the pram, and I'm not concerned with losing any information since I've massively expanded most of the Album articles anyway (they're all several orders of magnitude larger than their relevant sections here). I have all the major books and they're significant tomes - for a reason. Many bands just knock out albums to earn a bit more money. Floyd never did that. Their musical output and interpersonal relationships are so heavily intertwined that I feel any significant cuts in those areas would seriously undermine the integrity of the article. I don't mind losing some of the technical aspects, but some of the things that Floyd became famous for - such as the Animals cover image - can't reasonably be removed, as the imagery was used for years thereafter. As for readers not having the patience to read such a large article, well they can always go and read about a band that doesn't have a 40-year history. Parrot of Doom 17:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In recompense for the discomfort you experienced during this GA Review, you now have evidence that the question of length and detail has been thoroughly examined, and the article passed at a size of 117 kilobytes as meeting GA criteria for focus. There is a feeling by PL290, which I share, that some more weight can be taken off the history section; however, the article is not excessively long, and does not break any guidelines. Regards! SilkTork *YES! 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

I have reviewed the aspects identified as questionable under 3B and 2B/3A, and I have made some further changes to address these, as has PoD. My opinion follows.

Focus (3B)

The "album" sections have now received some trimming to more of a summary style. They could benefit from further condensing (e.g., record company matters sometimes interrupt the narrative, such as during the first US tour, and The Wall still stands out as rather long), but I believe they now meet the GA criterion of staying focussed. On this note, the section titles imply a specific album focus, which perhaps exaggerates the perceived lack of focus since they are only intended as milestones in a timeframe rather than always "album sections" per se. Expanding some section names, where significantly more than the album is covered (e.g., off the top of my head, "The Wall and Wright's departure"), would help by giving the reader more accurate expectations of section content.

Aspects only mentioned in the lead (2B/3A)

I note that "elaborate live shows" has already been addressed. I have looked at each of the others identified:

  • "psychedelic music": cited several times in article text
  • "space rock music": not mentioned in article, so has now been removed from lead
  • "their progressive rock music": mentioned in article (though more could be made of it).
  • "the use of philosophical lyrics" - this is clear from, for example, discussion of Dark Side and Wish You Were Here lyrics
  • "sonic experimentation": cited several times in article text
  • "innovative album cover art": cited several times in article text, including the involvement of Hipgnosis
Conclusion

I have not carried out a full GA review since other aspects have already received comprehensive coverage. In respect of these items identified above for which a second opinion was sought, I believe there remains scope for further improvement but the article now meets the GA criteria. PL290 (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that PL290. Passing as GA. SilkTork *YES! 15:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syd Barrett - Wish You Were Here recording appearance

According to this quote from an April 2006 David Gilmour interview with Mojo magazine, it wasn't the day of his first wedding when Syd Barrett turned up to the Wish You Were Here recording,

"The facts I'm certain of are that we were making that album at Abbey Road and Syd did turn up - anything else, I wouldn't count on its reliability. I don't know what song we were recording. I have no memory of him saying what's quoted as saying: 'You've played it once already, why do it again?' or 'Shall I do my solo now?' And it wasn't the day of my first wedding - that was later, in July - and Syd didn't come to it..."

--2009James (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.131 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...As was already mentioned in the footnotes. Parrot of Doom 19:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Waters driving force theories

The Theories:

  1. In 1973 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group since he wrote all the albums lyrics for the band.
  2. In 1976 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group since he made the names, styles, and structures of the tour and the next tours.
  3. In 1977 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group because he wrote nearly all the lyrics and music for the animals albums and he did the for the next albums. (and also he made the style and the structures of the tours [same point 2]}
  4. In 1979 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group because he made the concept, wrote all lyrics and nearly all music for the wall album and also nearly provide the vocals in the album as well as he made the style of the wall tour and he was the front man and the speak-man on the tour.
  5. In 1982 Waters became the driving force and the lead man to the group because he made a full concept, wrote all lyrics and music , provide all the vocals for The Final Cut and producing the album by him-self. (which from we can see it is supported in the article).

so I know which one is right? and from what i see i prefer the point number 2.

Note: the point are realated to other. this mean if we point 1 that mean all point are right. While if take point 4, only 4 and 5 are right and 1,2 and 3 are not right.

Got me?? now I need to know?? 62.61.164.135 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a Roger Waters' Fan Club chat forum and the above is totally irrelevant to the article unless of course 3rd party reliable sources can come up with any of the above "theories". What you, I or any other editor thinks about Waters is immaterial and is out of place on this talk page. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but this article says that Waters began to lead the band in 1982 to 1985 and Gilmore from 1987 to 1994. Is there any 3rd party reliable sources for these information? 62.61.164.135 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there are. Parrot of Doom 10:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, where are they? 62.61.164.135 (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What am I, your personal servant? They're listed in a nice big list at the bottom of the article. Parrot of Doom 11:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Man there are many links ???? which one of them that mentione the information?? 62.61.164.224 (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Most of them. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes guys, i checked them all. I didnt find any information says that Waters leadership to the band beagn in 1982 to 1985 and Gilmore from 1987 to 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.224 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You checked all the books listed in the Bibliography? I find that claim to be doubtful. Parrot of Doom 17:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • what we are discussing my personnel matters here? common just show me the information so everyone be happy or just tell me that there is no "3rd party reliable sources" for the info and you just made it up. 62.61.164.224 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Most of sites and critics states that Waters took control as soon as Barret went out and it wasn't until DSOTM and WUWH that he wrote all the lyrics for the these albums but he assume the full leadership in 1976 which he wrote all the lyrics and most of music for Animals, The Wall and The Final Cut. Thats why both Gilmour And Wright released their their solo albums at that era and all that times they arrangements with Waters. The article should say that (1976-1985) era is the era where Waters become the driving force in the band. not in 1982 as mentioned. I hope we made these changes based in these point of views which can be found in many official music sites as well as fan sites which I think we can call it "3rd party reliable sources". 62.61.164.224 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Really. So who wrote just about the entire first half of Animals then? Because it certainly wasn't Waters. I couldn't care less what music or fan sites say, because generally they're not considered reliable sources. While Waters may have been responsible for most of PF's lyrical output, and a great deal of its musical output after Wish You Were Here, nobody is going to tell me that he dominated Animals, or The Wall—because David Gilmour would have a great deal to say about that. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I also note you didn't answer my question about reading the bibliography, which indicates that you did not. Google searches of the internet won't really help you in this debate, which is why most of this article is sourced from published sources, not 'music sites' or 'fan sites' Parrot of Doom 19:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • The entire first half of "Animals"??? You mean "Dogs" its only one track and Roger had credits for it. If you consider one track is half the album, than your judging on length of songs and I seriously cant think of length judgments right now. and I know that fan sites and not considered reliable sources but at least if the information is widely public and its well know to anyone who has a background about it, than Why should we looks for books??? I mean what about the public view, so your telling me that Wikipedia don't take public views?? Well its such shame. And one more thing can you tell what was the arguments and conflicts with Waters and the rest of the band about about? no need to look for a book to find the answer. I'll give it here:

The whole point about my leaving the band in the first place, was because Roger (Waters) was assuming control. He had written the whole of The Wall. It was his piece and he had the right to withdraw it and that was what he was threatening to do unless I left the band." - Richard Wright 1996 interview at http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/band/interviews/rww/rww_frame.html

also in one interview David Gilmour admits that Waters was behind the concepts albums and he was the driving force in the band:

Nick’s got a very sore bum, I imagine. He spent so many years sitting on that fence. Rick was curmudgeonly about things and wanted us to move in a more pure, maybe jazzy direction. He was always moaning and groaning, but he didn’t really mean it half the time. We all have very different personalities is the truth of the matter. We were all very, very happy to have a driving force like Roger who wanted to push for these concepts. I don’t remember it being a big issue at the time. Jointly and severally, we wanted each piece of music to have its own magic. As an instrumental piece, we wanted it to have those little hints of magic about it before we tied it even into a lyric. Then, that lyric either has the same mood and strengthens the mood of the music, or the music then strengthens the lyric, or sometimes it’s because the music and the words conflict that it creates it. It’s not always the same way. If anything, at the end of Dark Side, I thought there were one or two moments where the lyric was stronger than the music that was carrying it. David Gilmour interview at http://www.pinkfloydz.com/introguncutjune2003.htm

62.61.164.224 (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • They're all available on eBay and Amazon. That's where we got them from. It's our responsibility to provide links to appropriate references, it's not our responsibility to provide you with reading material. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The question is in fact quite pertinent, especially in regard to how the article is to be structured. This [9] is a useful source for looking at the claim in the Lead that Pink Floyd were a "progressive music" band, and that author feels that it was 1973 when Waters became the dominant member of the band.

This [10] is also useful as it indicates that questions of who controlled the band (and which aspects of the band were more important, lyrics or music) are at the heart of the notable dispute. It would be helpful to have some more direct mention of the dispute in the article, in a section called "Dispute" perhaps, as it features quite prominently in articles and books on the band. An encyclopedia article which attempts to have broad coverage might be expected to give readers some background detail (collected from reliable sources) on the dispute. I certainly would find that very useful! SilkTork *YES! 10:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This also indicates that Waters was the "mastermind" of the band in the 1970s. SilkTork *YES! 10:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one says that Waters had "near complete control" at the time of Animals. So it is a matter of perspective. Perhaps "Waters-led" is not an appropriate section heading, as it is too sharp a definition. SilkTork *YES! 10:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article building is as much about research and reflection as it is about putting material into the article. What you have above is links to some sources that provide useful material, as well as some thoughts on how the article can be structured. Not to say that the thinking is correct, nor that any action should be taken on those thoughts. SilkTork *YES! 15:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think if I got the point or not?? However, Good Luck 62.61.164.192 (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Rock

I removed Space Rock from the lead since the article makes no mention. I suggest it remains absent from the lead, as confusion is likely to result from the more recent redefinition of the term to refer to ambient music. However, somewhere in the sections dealing with Floyd's earlier works, I suggest the article could usefully mention its application during that period, and its relevance to the early lyrical themes, as is in fact done by the article Space Rock. PL290 (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:A Knight Who Says Ni/Essays#The "genre" field in infoboxes in articles about musicians, albums and songs Parrot of Doom 14:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's about infoboxes. It mentions other things in passing, noting that Floyd are "often regarded as pioneers of space rock", and that some query this. Having read the essay, my suggestion is still the same. My point is not about infoboxes so I'm not sure what your point is! PL290 (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmour-led era (1985–1994)

I dont think that David Gilmour took the leadership in Pink Floyd between 1985-1994. Maybe he was in the Momentary Lapse of Reason era but I seriously doubt that he led in The Division Bell. This album is less forced and more of a group effort than previous one as the other members in the band contribute in writing of the songs. 62.61.164.252 (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what you think or even what you doubt, unless you can come up with reliably sourced info that supports your position then I rather doubt it is going to change anytime soon... at least not without being reverted anyway. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the hole led era of both Waters and Gilmour sections are complacently wrong. I dont say that the current is bad, but I more likely to prefer the previous one. Unless if some changes happens that could be more fair to who led Pink Floyd.

DavidGilmours.solo (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English that would be...? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't think Roger Waters/David Gilmour led the band in their respective eras"
Whole-heartedly untrue, seeing as a great deal of the article is written using Nick Mason's biography of the band. It's not fair to the other members, but Roger Waters was quite clearly a dictator, and David Gilmour quite clearly brought the band back together. If anything needs to be wondered, its whether or not Bob Ezrin should be considered a member of the band from The Wall onwards, seeing as he made more contributions to those 4 albums than both Mason and Wright put together. The leaders, however, are pretty evident - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to become a discussion forum on Floyd rather than discussion on the article. Regardless, supposition and conjecture is irrelevant to this article and unfairness to either Gilmore or Waters is also irrelevant. They are quite free to write their own books, in which case I'm sure they would be purchased/borrowed by many of this article's editors and in turn quoted by said editors. Until such time as that happens the current discussion is moot. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fred the oyster and thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia

Please help me understand why the Pink Floyd Discography Timeline external link I posted do not comply with our guidelines for external links.

I think it is a great enhancement to the page. It doesn't link to any commercial site, and it adds new information to the page by listing the discography in a visual way that isn’t available elsewhere.

Thank you

addyfe

It only loads the top banner for me in Firefox. The rest of the page below that is blank. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Because it simply isn't necessary. There are already enough legitimate external links in the article. Your suggested link doesn't say anything the article doesn't already cover, it doesn't have any official connections and it's a Flash only page that someone who doesn't wish to have Flash installed can't see. It's no different to the accepted practice of not linking to fan sites regardless of how pretty they are. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

There's been a minor edit war with an anon IP insisting that all names under which the band members have played, be included in the infobox.

My view is that only those names which the band which was recognisably Pink Floyd used should be included. This would be pretty much anything following the arrival of Syd Barrett. The other names (Megadeths, etc) are, in every published source I have, given only the briefest of mentions; which leads me to believe that if those authors don't think it important, then this article should not either.

I've brought this discussion here to attempt to resolve this issue. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article even only makes brief mention of it. The infobox should provide important information at a glance. In effect a too-lazy;didn't-read. The Tea Set was the only name besides The Pink Floyd Sound that they played noticeable gigs under, and the Megadeaths needn't be in the infobox. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've semi-protected the article for one month to prevent the edit warring. If people feel this is too strong a remedy please let me know and I'll unprotect. SilkTork *YES! 23:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain its necessary on that basis - but I won't particularly object, since just about every IP edit to this article is incorrect, or vandalism, and is reverted. Now I have one less thing to worry about for a month. Parrot of Doom 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wright was since 1987 again a member of Pink Floyd

Dear all, Richard Wright left Pink Floyd in 1979 (he was a paid musician for the Wall concerts). Since 1987 he was again a member of Pink Floyd. He played additional keyboards and did some backing vocals on the 1987 album. He stood on all the group (Pink Floyd) pictures, in contrast to paid musicians like Jon Carin and Dick Parry (they weren't members of Pink Floyd). Wright played also on all the Pink Floyd concerts since 1987.

A lot of reliable sources confirm the fact that Richard Wright again was a member of Pink Floyd since 1987:

So, it's very clear. Richard Wright was a member of Pink Floyd in the periods 1965-1979 and 1987-1996. So it should be mentioned in the article like this. Everyone agree?

Kind regards 84.198.73.115 (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Was there any discussion about this? Wright officially returned to Pink Floyd. It's even mentioned in the source? Floydian Tree (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. Wright did not appear on the gatefold photograph for A Momentary Lapse of Reason. He was a contributing musician only, and paid a salary. He was not, contractually, a member of the band, and was present mostly to make clear to Waters that the band then was more than just Gilmour and Mason. Povey, Mason, Schaffner, and Blake all confirm this, and those four expert sources trump a few poorly-researched newspaper articles—none of which actually state that Wright was a member of the band in 1987.
I'm quite happy to revisit these sources to confirm the exact point in time he did rejoin the band, but it was most certainly not in 1987. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mason (2005), p289 - "Rick joined proceedings quite late in the day and was quarantined from any costs or legal repercussions from Roger. This was mainly a practical matter. There was some confusion over Rick's position in the band. When David and I first wanted to talk to Rick we discovered that buried in his leaving agreement from 1981 was a clause that prevented him from rejoining the group. Consequently we had to be careful about what constituted being a member of the band; only David and I appeared on the cover of the album." Parrot of Doom 19:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blake (2008), p317 - "There were one or two legal reasons which made it a little trickier if Rick rejoined ... A clause in his levaing agreement disqualified him from rejoining the band as a full member ... and to be honest Nick and I didn't particularly want to get in extra partners - we had put up all the money and taken the biggest risks, and so we wanted to take the largest cut." Parrot of Doom 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Glenn Povey's book "The complete history of Pink Floyd" is mentioned the following: "Completing the reunion, Wright was now playing full with the band. In this role he contributed substantially to the Pink Floyd soundtrack La Carrera Panamericana (page 244)." The soundtrack was written in 1991. Wright was thus surely a member since 1991.Christo jones (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If interpretation is the name of the game "with" doesn't necessarily equate to "in". It seems to me that if Gilmour and Mason didn't consider him to be a 'legal' member of the band then I'd say that was pretty conclusive. They're certainly more in the know than any of us. So if that's what they said then that's what we must accept. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the words "completing the reunion" are important. From which year are the following group pictures?

From the years 1987-1989! Where are Dick Parry, Guy Pratt and the others? Not on these pictures, because on these pictures stand only Pink Floyd members.Christo jones (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are pictures of three middle-aged men. Why don't you look at the two sources quoted above? You really think that three random internet pictures are somehow a more reliable source than those books? Parrot of Doom 20:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever inferences you get from the pictures is synthesis and original research. The expert sources already given should be given priority over anything you, I or any other editor can come up with on their own. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous, perception is sometimes very important. Wright was surely a member of Pink Floyd, maybe not contractually, but that makes no sense. Who are we to say that he wasn't a member of Pink Floyd in 1987, just because a sentence in his contract? In theory he wasn't, but in reality he was surely a member. This should be changed, asap. Thanks.212.1.1.63 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_Floyd&oldid=345879566"