Talk:Pink Floyd

Band Members Section

I understand there was some controversy about having a band members section, but I propose that it be returned. A simple list of former members with their years of being in the band, and the instruments they played. It's good practice, and easy and concise for people to glance through and see who the guitarist of Pink Floyd was in 1967 or whatever. — DLManiac (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

please stop deleting the band members section I put in

I worked for 10 minutes on it and I think it should be there, so please stop deleting it, it is valuable information and it has no reason to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Other editors have worked for much longer to bring this article to FA status. I am not convinced that your addition is an improvement and no sources are cited for it. Graham Beards (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A reply to graham beards

ok read the article, it says Gilmour joined in 67, barret left in 68, Richard was fired in 79, waters was fired in 85, wright returned for the division bell recording, so yeah I think there are viable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Martin,I want to put in a band members section, but when I do it gets deleted, I don't know why since everything in it is backed by the page itself in its entirety, So I hope that people realize that it is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I know the article well and I have read it many times during its transition from a short contribution to a Featured Article. Your additions are not an improvement; they are not cited to reliable sources and they are subject to contention. Your timeline oversimplifies the history of the band and looks ugly. Also, please be mindful of our policy on reverting which is here WP:3RR. Any further reversions on your part might result in restrictions being placed on your editing privileges. Graham Beards (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been a registered user for four days and had made just over the necessary 10 edits to become an auto-confirmed editor. So, you prepared to put that timeline in. All your other edits were tests and then reverts of yourself. I believe you wanted to do all that just to be able to put the timeline in. The timeline has been discussed and rejected many times before. Stop pleading ignorance. Dismas|^(talk) 22:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps your motives are entirely honourable. But that seems to be a major departure from the current structure. This article has been a Featured Article and so consensus, reached among many editors, is very firmly against you. Martinevans123 (talk)

• Yo Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers..guys try to link to problems dont leave new editors in the dark when its clear they are editing in good faith but dont know the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet. @ ICommandeth this is a topic that has come up in the past and has been rejected by those that watch over the article. Consensus can change ...so best way forward is to address the concerns raised above and post the chart here on the talk page see what other's have to say after a revision. That said you will find it a hard sell even if its all sourced and looking good...as the chart is something most here just dont like despite there popularity. -- Moxy (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the timeline is that bad. It's useful for quickly understanding exactly what constituted Pink Floyd over the decades, and it is a band with a famously shifting line-up.

"Oversimplifies the history of the band"? Simplification is the point - if it oversimplifies it then by that logic so does any summary, like the Background information box, for example.

All that said, I don't feel super-passionately in favour of it, and I'm not going to push back against a consensus. I just don't see what's so awful about it. Popcornduff (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I also dont mind a "Timeline" as does User:DLManiac in the section above. The way its done at Def Leppard or The Rolling Stones looks great to me. BUT those here have done a great job bring this to FA and keeping it at that level so I would also defer to there POV on the subject. Its just a style issue not a content issue so not a big deal in my eyes. -- Moxy (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I've never understood the attraction of these things, nor how they improve the article. At best they are eye candy, and that's being extremely generous because they are not nice to look at and extremely difficult to parse for any useful information. At worst, and this is what we see more often, they are an information design nightmare and a constant magnet for petty disputes. The only time these can clearly convey anything is when the band's membership history is so simple that it wouldn't require a timeline to begin with. As is the case here, where you end up with multiple stacked colored bars scattered all over a chart, you have to go read the article to understand it anyway. Then, droves of drive-by editors will begin coming by every week moving things around, changing the colors, taking it down, putting it back up, and so on. This in itself isn't a reason not to have it, but the headaches these things cause are second only to those caused by genre warriors. Plus, they're not accessible. Please leave it be. --Laser brain (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with charts like these is they're kind of redundant for bands with only a few core members like Floyd, and also mask certain subtleties. Exactly what contribution Gilmour made to the band in 1967 is questionable; he didn't join officially until January 1968. If Wright was fired in 1979, who's that chap playing keyboard with Peter Wood at Earl's Court in 1981? Waters "leaving" in 1985 was more business than band, and did they all decide to split up right after the last gig in 1994? No, it simply fizzled out. You can't get that across in a chart. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The chart/section in question

here it is, I want people to talk about to see if it fits, I know people don't like having a members part on this page, I mean why? Why is it bad, but anyway here it is, (note to self, put Syd Barrett at the top of the chart): ... by ICommandeth

• David Gilmour - vocals, guitar (1967-1994, 2012-2014)
• Roger Waters - vocals, bass guitar (1965-1985)
• Richard Wright - keyboards, vocals (1965-1979, 1993-1994; died 2008)
• Nick Mason - drums, percussion (1965-1994, 2012-2014)
• Syd Barrett - vocals, guitar (1965-1968; died 2006)

Here's my point of view on it. There is no easy way to see when Waters left the band without reading the entire article. And you wouldn't even know that Wright left and came back without this. (Remember we have to think about outsiders looking in for quick information) that is easy to compile. — DLManiac (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, although I am definitely a fan of the timeline, I'm, not even insisting that it be included, But in my opinion, the list is NECESSARY. It so easily tells us who was in the band at what time, and WHAT THEY PLAYED. That was my main grief above (I want to be able to click on "Band Members" in the contents and easily see who the keyboardist of Pink Floyd was. — DLManiac (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be simpler to create List of Pink Floyd members. That will have space to include all touring and session players, including keyboardists such as Jon Carin, Andy Bown, Michael Kamen and David Gilmour. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful Idea. Just need someone with the time to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLManiac (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a List of Pink Floyd band members but it was AfDed as a redirect in 2009. If I cobble together something more like List of Hammond organ players using the book sources I've got, I should be able to present something that will survive a revert. We can park the timeline in there and debate it away from the spotlight of an FA - I dare say it shouldn't be much work to make a FL out of it as the contents of the list are well sourced and finite. We also have Pink Floyd live backing musicians but that's mostly unsourced, so it can probably be merged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I like List of Aerosmith band members and List of Guns N' Roses band members. One idea might be to move the backing members page to "list of members". Just throwing out ideas. — DLManiac (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have resurrected List of Pink Floyd band members. As you can see, it's skeletal and only cites Glenn Povey's book (although that's one of the best sources, so IMHO if you have to have only one, use that one), but if we all chip in, it'll be in good shape. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)