Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Dark Side of the Moon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 60 days

The Dark Side of the Moon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 30, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 2, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
August 25, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 27, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 27, 2010	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Albums FA‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pink Floyd FA‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pink FloydWikipedia:WikiProject Pink FloydTemplate:WikiProject Pink FloydPink Floyd articles

FA

This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past project collaboration.

To-do list:

Fair use

Add fair use rationale to all images and sound samples (all except images already labeled free use).
Re-size large images around to 300 pixels (all "fair use" images), other than album covers (already done).

Articles

Expand all articles to at least Start class. Some song stubs can't be expanded and should be redirected to the relevant album article. Use the "Interstellar Overdrive" article as an example when editing a song stub.
Expand all of the Floyd's studio album articles to at least GA status.
See COTM for monthly collabs.

Project building

Add WikiProject Pink Floyd banner {{WPFloyd}} to all appropriate Talk pages.
Personally invite quality editors working on Pink Floyd articles to join the project.

If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list.

This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Progressive Rock FA‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Rock music FA‑class Top‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Track times and names

There have been several attempts to change track lengths and names. The table here shows such variations. Please note that the article is currently based on the original 1973 Vinyl release.

#	Track title	Credited to	Vocals	Track times for individual releases
#	Track title	Credited to	Vocals	Original release 1973 LP	Mobile Fidelity Ultradisc CD	Original CD and 1994 remaster	Shine On box set and 1993 rerelease	2003 SACD
1	"Speak to Me"	Nick Mason	instrumental	1:30	1:13	1:10	1:13	1:08
2	"Breathe" (or "Breathe in the Air")¹	David Gilmour Roger Waters Rick Wright	David Gilmour	2:43	2:46	2:48	2:47	2:49
3	"On the Run"	David Gilmour Roger Waters	instrumental	3:30	3:35	3:35	3:33	3:50
4	"Time" (containing "Breathe (Reprise)")	David Gilmour Roger Waters Rick Wright Nick Mason	David Gilmour (verse) Rick Wright (chorus)	6:53	7:04	7:04	7:07	6:50
5	"The Great Gig in the Sky"	Rick Wright Clare Torry²	Clare Torry	4:15	4:48	4:47	4:44	4:44
6	"Money"	Roger Waters	David Gilmour	6:30	6:23	6:22	6:32	6:23
7	"Us and Them"	Rick Wright Roger Waters	David Gilmour Rick Wright (harmony vocal)	7:34	7:50	7:50	7:41	7:50
8	"Any Colour You Like"	David Gilmour Rick Wright Nick Mason	instrumental	3:24	3:25	3:25	3:25	3:26
9	"Brain Damage"	Roger Waters	Roger Waters David Gilmour (harmony vocal)	3:50	3:50	3:50	3:51	3:47
10	"Eclipse"	Roger Waters	Roger Waters Rick Wright (harmony vocal) David Gilmour (harmony vocal)	1:45	2:04	2:01	2:04	2:11

Track times and names

Personnel credits, as with all Pink Floyd articles, are cited to the original Columbia or Harvest vinyl release where possible. In this instance, the inner left gatefold (see here) credits : DAVID GILMOUR Vocals, Guitars, VCS3 NICK MASON Percussion, Tape Effects RICHARD WRIGHT Keyboards, Vocals, VCS3 ROGER WATERS Bass Guitar, Vocals, VCS3, Tape Effects

Genre

Consensus has concluded that Progressive rock alone is the most suitable genre to put in the infobox. While arguments have been put forward for other genres such as rock or psychedelic rock, discussions tend to go round in circles and the status quo of a single genre is the preferred option.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]