Jump to content

Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

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)

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)
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)
No, that would be best handled in prose. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:37, 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)

"If you want to make a change to this article then build a consensus with a convincing argument," I have been trying to do that this whole time! :) Obviously, that didn't happen, so I will leave in peace. My Final Thought: Template:Infobox musical artist#genre. Twyfan714 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

1) That's not a policy or a guideline; its merely a template suggestion that does not hold sway over local consensus. 2) It goes on to say: "Note: most genres are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be capitalized."(emphasis added) So its explicitly acknowledging that infoboxes sometimes list multiple genres, but its in no way suggesting that generality = singularity. "Aim for generality" does not translate to "list only one or two genres regardless of the versatility of the artist or work", which appears to be the assumption that you are making. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I never said that all infoboxes should have only one genre. "Aim for generality" seems to me to indicate that the genres in this infobox are too specific. However, since it also says, "most fields are optional", then I guess this is a grey area. Since that is the case, logic says I should leave it as is. Very well, I will leave it at that. Sorry for wasting all this time! Twyfan714 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

Pink Floyd Wikipedia page: Under "Disillusionment, absence, and non-being", a lyric from "Comfortably Numb" is found. The lyric reads "I caught a fleeting glimpse, out OR the corner of my eye". "OR" is actually "of", verified by the album's printed lyrics and any site displaying Pink Floyd lyrics. Thanks M McCoy MichaelRMcCoy (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Evan (talk|contribs) 03:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Members

88.172.222.205 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I found a source for it and put it in, thanks for making this! Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 Not done: Never mind, apparently timelines aren't for Featured Articles. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 23:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Endless River

Given the news about the new studio album "The Endless River", I think that the article needs some key adjustments. First of all the opening should be changed to "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" (they evidently do exist still, coming out of hiatus with a new studio work this year), and years active should be changed (at least 2014 should be added now, perhaps other years as well down the road, depending on when the The Endless River recording sessions had been held).50.98.17.246 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Along the similar lines, David Gilmour and Nick Mason should be moved to "Current Members" from "Past Members" section. They have been actively working in the studio on The Endless River during at least 2013-2014. 50.98.17.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and have now restored the 'current members' in the infobox. Jellyman (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Very well, but as I stated, I believe we should be conservative with this article until we know the confirmed personnel for the album and who else might constitute a member, be it someone new or a possible return of Roger. It is safe to assume Gilmour and Mason are part of this current iteration, but there will undoubtedly be others and if they end up touring after the album releases, a section regarding all live members should possibly be added, as it has been on other band pages. Swim Jonse (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Bob Klose/Past Members section

Perhaps Bob Klose should be included as one of the founding members of Pink Floyd, as well as the Past Members section? He was a member as Pink Floyd formed in 1965, and when they started performing as The Pink Floyd and/or The Pink Floyd Sound?

Also, may I suggest re-arranging the Past Members section to put Barrett's name above Waters, alphabetically speaking?

Bob Klose left the group in July 1965, but there is little evidence that they actually used the name Pink Floyd (or a variation thereof) up to that point. They started performing again (as a four piece, without Bob Klose) in early October 1965, as The Pink Floyd Sound (it seems that Syd learned about the American band called The Tea Set during the summer, and they dropped that name). Once Klose left there was also a major musical shift, moving away from standard r'n'b covers (the real musical start of Pink Floyd). I am not entirely convinced that Bob Klose should be treated as a former member of Pink Floyd. Rather, he was a member of an earlier band that evolved into Pink Floyd. 50.98.17.246 (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Could we include some section that discusses that ambiguity? Sometimes I feel articles on Wikipedia water down one opinion vs. another when it may serve readers best if the ambiguity on a point like this is discussed. --Albertrosenfield1956 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Years active

RE the active years should it not say 1965-1996(floyd played at rnr hof in 96)2005 2013-present?(live 8 was 2005 and the recording sessions for the new LP started around a year ago?)

OR-1965-1996,2003,2005,2006,2007,2011,2013-present:- floyd techically played live in 2003(managers funural),2006(gilmour tour)2007(syd barrett concert)and 2011(the wall encore),and according to Mason,never actually split,so a case could be made for 1965 present? KPS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.196.227 (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Another consideration is the possible addition of Durga McBroom, Guy Pratt and/or Polly Samson to the members section, as it is apparent that they have made contributions to this album and potentially to the Division Bell as well. Also, considering that Pink Floyd never officially went on hiatus at any point, wouldn't simply 1965–present be suitable now? - Floydian τ ¢ 20:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
They are still just personnel, not full members. If the new album lists any of them as members when it comes out, then we can talk. I wouldn't object to your second suggestion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point... though I wonder what the reissue of Division Bell lists as well, since that was obviously done as a tie-in with this announcement... prime the pumps if you will. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I think the years active should be 1965-present. Nazarino13 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

1965-present would make the most sense KPS

1965-present is my vote as well. There was never a point where they said that there was no more Pink Floyd. Roger tried to say that circa 1987 but I can't recall any point where they definitively said that the group was no more. Dismas|(talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I share the same opinion, Pink Floyd is active since 1965 and is still active (so 1965-present).Christo jones (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the years active should be 1965-present, because Pink Floyd did break up in 1996, even Nick Mason states that in his autobiography. I think the years active should be 1965-1996; 2005; 2013-2014. The last should definitely not be 2014-present, because according to the reports by the musicians involved, Gilmour and Mason reunited in the studio in early 2013, so it should be noted as the year active period. Also, the "-present" should be removed since there are not yet reports of any band activity following the album release in October.--Milosppf (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that we need to be really careful here, and not confuse hiatus (periods of inactivity) with being official disbanded i.e. not existing as an entity. Pink Floyd never official disbanded since 1965, although there were many hiatus periods in-between. After all, how do we define what being active means? There are essentially three types of band activity: concerts, recording sessions (which, as illustrated by the work on The Endless River in 2013-2014, public may not be even aware of at all), and promo activities officially involving the band (band press conferences, band attending events, etc.). For example, Pink Floyd as a band did attend the launch of the Pulse DVD at the Vue cinema in London’s Leicester Square on July 3, 2006. There we there as a band (as Pink Floyd), all three band members were present, and they spoke of the band in the present tense (here is one report, for example: http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/archive/pink-floyds-pulse-dvd-official-launch.html). Did Pink Floyd exist on July 03, 2006? I would definitely say yes. However, that event (or day) is not included in the years active section at all (?). One could find similar instances to this one, if s/he looks hard enough. My point is this - they exist until they officially call it quits, something that they have not done so yet. Until that happens, either by conscious choice or due to natural causes (death of members), they can come out of hiatus and do things as Pink Floyd whenever they want to. 50.98.17.246 (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Then, according to you, Led Zeppelin were "active" in 2012 when they received the Kennedy Center Honors, because they were labeled there as "Led Zeppelin." Now go to their Wikipedia page and see if there is 2012 in the "years active" section. Therefore, I would agree that there are two activities: recording new material and performing, either of which have not been done by the band since 1996, not including Live 8 reunion and the new album sessions.--Milosppf (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not that familiar with Led Zeppelin history to comment, but what I can point to is The Beatles - they officially disbanded (ceased to legally exist as a band) on December 29, 1974, when all four band members finally signed the 'divorce' papers on the matter. Their last band activity was the band photo shoot at Tittenhurst Park on August 22, 1969, and had they decided to work together again from August 22, 1969 to December 29, 1974, the break would have simply been a hiatus. Pink Floyd never went through the disbanding process since forming in 1965 (Roger Waters formally left the bend in December 1985), that is yet to come. 50.98.17.246 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am familiar enough with Zep history to know that within days of (if not the day after) Bonham's death, Robert Plant read a statement saying that Led Zeppelin cannot continue to exist without him. That was an official disbanding. Pink Floyd never did this. However, I can agree on using 1965–2014 as a compromise (though again, I feel that until they formally disband, they are together). It really comes down to the meaning of "Active years". - Floydian τ ¢ 18:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Years Active" is a bit of a misnomer here, because Pink Floyd does exist as an entity (a music band) from 1965 to present, but they were certainly not active for that entire period. If we define 'being active' as recording sessions and concerts only, even that 1965-1995 block needs to be revisited (for example, there were no concerts or recording sessions in 1984 and 1985, so why is that included?). I think that defining band activity as only recording sessions and concerts is far too restrictive (and unimaginative), there are many other activities a band can do as a band. Going back to The Beatles example, August 22, 1969 photo session at Tittenhurst Park was the very last thing The Beatles did as a band, and if one was there, he or she was with The Beatles, and witnessing history. 50.98.17.246 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
My last point and I am out of this debate. This is a section from Nick Mason's book: "David would, I think, freely admit that he was the one who was the least eager to return to the fray. He seemed to have little appetite for all the ramifications of cranking up the whole machinery of touring yet again. But I did hang on to the hope that this was not necessarily the end of Pink Floyd as an active force. There were various things we had never done. We never developed the idea David had for a twist on the unplugged concept. We never released the "ambient" tapes from the Division Bell sessions. And – to date at least – I have never appeared in the "Identity Parade" round on Never Mind The Buzzcocks. After so much relative inactivity, musically speaking, I had been wondering how to end this book. However, I was unexpectedly provided with the material for a proper postscript, and shortly afterwards by the best of all possible dénouements." [he then goes into the Live 8 reunion, Wright's death, etc.] If this does not imply that there was a breakup, then it is 1965-present, but I would interpret this as quite the opposite.--Milosppf (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There is also an interview with Gilmour, during the 'On an Island' tour period, in which he said about Pink Floyd: "I don't wish to shut any doors too firmly..." (look for it on YouTube). He never formally disbanded Pink Floyd - that we would have definitely heard about, it would have been on the news (like Waters officially leaving in December 1985). All we need to do here is find a common denominator on how to define "Years Active", and why should we include this and not that in it. 50.98.17.246 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I deleted my joke, it was a joke. I have stated my opinion and am leaving the discussion, officially.--Milosppf (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Can't tell if serious or trolling. Nick (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree that the band's status should be 1965-Present. I know it has been debated here many times, but the band never made any official announcements that they broke up. They've made statements, individually, as to their whims regarding the band and how they might feel about touring or recording, but the last line-up to tour was Gilmour, Mason, Wright - that same line-up made an appearance on Gilmour's "On an Island" tour (even if not as "Pink Floyd"), and later played Barbican as well. I realize there are a lot of strong opinions on this subject but excepting some press release that ever stated they had officially disbanded and broken up, or whatever, I'm not sure there's a strong enough case for that. I hope, at least, that consensus moves in that direction, ultimately. --Albertrosenfield1956 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is in the wording. It should really say "Existing: 1965-present" (or something to that effect). "Years Active" is something different, and open to debate, as witnessed by the discussion above. 50.98.17.246 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point, it may be fair to differentiate "existing" as opposed to "active."--Albertrosenfield1956 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with the inclusion of both categories ("Existing" and "Years Active") on the front page, but there are definition issues with "Years Active" as it stands. As already stated, there were no recording sessions or concerts in 1984-1985, and that is included in the active block period 1965-1995. On the other hand, in January 1996 Pink Floyd was inducted in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame; all three band members were present, and Pink Floyd went on stage that night and performed an acoustic version of "Wish You Were Here" - you can label that as a live performance, however that is not included. 50.98.17.246 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I totally disagree with those who think Pink Floyd should be said to be active. They are talking about an album which is based on 20 years old sessions! No touring plans have been made. There's no new material, and they haven't toured since 1994! The lineup is also unclear: the official lineup (the ones who have the right to use the name "Pink Floyd") are the members who were touring in 1994: David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Richard Wright. In 2005, there was a reunion (the term "reunion" indicates that the band has broken up, but performs again, also pointing in the direction that the band has disbanded) also featuring Roger Waters. But was he then a member of the band at the time? Officially not, in fact yes. In 2007, there was also a de facto reunion featuring Gilmour, Mason and Wright, but they didn't use the name "Pink Floyd". In 2011, there was also a reunion, not featuring Wright, as he was deceased, and then the lineup was Waters, Gilmour, Mason (although they didn't use the name "Pink Floyd" then either). I think this question should be up to debate. And Pink Floyd are still disbanded according to most people. Te og kaker (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
While the album is based on the Division Bell sessions from 20+ years ago, Gilmour and Mason have gone in the studio and recorded more on those sessions according to McBroom. There was no official disbanding of Pink Floyd, and we can't use "according to most people" as a source that they did. Nazarino13 (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Pink Floyd, blues rock

The claim that Pink Floyd should be classified as a blues rock band (amongst too Progressive rock, psychedelic rock, art rock) has been challenged by User:Te og kaker. Here are just a few references for the blues rock connection: Bruno MacDonald, Pink Floyd: Through the Eyes Of-- the Band, Its Fans, Friends, and Foes, Da Capo Press, 1997, and another: Paul Hegarty, Martin Halliwel, Beyond and Before: Progressive Rock since the 1960s, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2011. There are many more references. I will be back with More shortly. Coldcreation (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are a couple More:

  • Strong, Martin C. (2004). The Great Rock Discography (7th ed.). Edinburgh: Canongate Books. p. 1177. ISBN 1-84195-551-5.
  • Mabbett, Andy (1995). The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd. London: Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-4301-X.

And this is from Money (Pink Floyd song)

The form and chord progression are based on the standard twelve-bar blues in the key of B minor, with the vocal melody and nearly all of Gilmour's soloing based on the pentatonic and blues scales. (Pink Floyd: The Dark Side of the Moon (1973 Pink Floyd Music Publishers Ltd., London, England, ISBN 0-7119-1028-6 [USA ISBN 0-8256-1078-8])). Two twelve-bar verses are followed by a twenty-bar instrumental section that features a blues-style tenor saxophone solo (played by Dick Parry) along with keyboard, bass and drums and a further two-bar intro in 4/4 leading to the guitar solo, which is structured like a twelve-bar blues, but doubled to a twenty-four-bar length. Source: Guitar for the Practicing Musician magazine, Collector's Yearbook: Guitar Classics VI, Cherry Lane Music Company, Inc., 10 Midland Avenue, Port Chester, N.Y., 10573-1490. ISSN 1061-4400.

Coldcreation (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they made music in that genre, but they also made music within the genres hard rock, space rock, electronic music, folk rock, psychedelic folk and psychedelic pop. However, you can't mention all the genres a band operated in throughout their career. Progressive rock, psychedelic rock and art rock fits good for a general description, because those are the most prominent genres that the group operated within. Te og kaker (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Arguably, Money is the most well-known work by the band world-wide. It is based on standard blues. Very many other works written and played by Pink Floyd are indeed blues-based. In addition to Progressive rock, psychedelic rock and art rock (and much more so than the genres you mention above) Pink Floyd is most certainly classifiable as a blues rock band. Coldcreation (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
But it wasn't just the music that had within it at its root the blues: The name Pink Floyd itself is derived from the names of two blues musicians whose blues records Barrett had in his collection, Pink Anderson and Floyd Council. Coldcreation (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Te og kaker, it is not a significant enough part of their music to be singled out of mention. The main genres are well covered.--SabreBD (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You have a right to your opinion and I respect it. But it remains just that, nothing more. You need to examine the relevant literature. Coldcreation (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2014

Pink Floyd were active from 1965-1995 and then the reunions happened in 2005, and 2014-present 24.251.185.107 (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion Years active. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I've cancelled the request. As Mlpearc mentioned, see Talk:Pink Floyd#Years active for an ongoing discussion regarding this statistic. We welcome your opinion as to why you believe these dates should be used, as most of us have differing opinions on the context of "active" in the case of Pink Floyd. :) Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 05:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I must add that I think the "ongoing discussion" is pretty stupid. Almost every other article describing a band that has been active and inactive at times uses a clear set of dates. In example: "1965-199X, 2014-present". I'm not going to act like one way is correct but there's conflicting opinions about something that seems pretty simple. Swim Jonse (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the public does not have clear insight into all band activity, as clearly demonstrated by the 2013-14 recording sessions for the Endless River we knew nothing about. Here is another example, showing that Pink Floyd did exist in 2008. Upon the already seriously ill Richard Wright's request, Pink Floyd wanted to play once more at an open-air festival, in particular, in Glastonbury in 2008. The organizer of that event refused Pink Floyd's request. See: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/oct/07/pink.floyd.keyboardist.denied.last.wish 24.84.24.60 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Years active were changed yet again to "1965-1994, 2005, 2014- present". I don't agree with the 1965-1994 block, first of all. How was Pink Floyd exactly active between May 1983 (when the last Final Cut products were released, the 7 inch single and video EP) and October 1986, when the first recording sessions for the MLoR started? It should be "1965-1983, 1986-1994" instead - there were no concerts or recoding sessions between May 1983 and October 1986. Also, why is it "2014-present" and not "2013-present" when we know that Durga McBroom publicly stated she went into the studio to work on the Endless River in December 2013? 162.156.25.153 (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

The "alienation, war, and insanity section under themes states that "However, Waters also wanted the album to communicate positivism, calling it "an exhortation ... to embrace the positive and reject the negative."" with the word "positivism" linked. The context indicates that Waters wanted to communicate generally being positive, however the word "positivism" is linked to an article on philosophical positivism, which is a epistemic position and not really related with being positive. I'd like for this link to be removed as it distracts from the meaning of Waters.2620:10A:90CC:B070:8D36:1957:C38E:D365 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sing! 07:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Dark Side of the Moon – album cover.

This bit is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrrick (talk • contribs) 11:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your statement is unclear. What bit is unclear? Murry1975 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The dark side is always a bit unclear, that's because it's dark. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014

Hello! The new Pink Floyd album, The Endless River, is coming out in November, not October Billmovementforever (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
enough reliable sources confirm the estimated release date:

Christo jones (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Members section

Is there a reason why there isn't a "members" or "band members" type section in the article? I just ask because this is one of the articles I sometimes consult when cleaning up other band articles, since its an FA and all, and wanted to know for reference purposes. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

one-off reunions

"one-off reunions: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011" ... 2005 OK. 2007 I accept, because 3 band members were on the stage playing rehearsed song (although without Gilmoure, who have been permanent member whole time after joining the band). 2006 I do not know so well what happened. 2011 I would not count at all, because the music is played by Roger Waters band and Gilmour and Mason were there basically hanging on the stage. Did any of these shows happened actually billed as Pink Floyd? 87.95.2.176 (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The 2007 reunion was Gilmour, Mason and Wright. Amb1997 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
OK. The referrence had incorrect information. I would actually count also this as one-off reunion as there was members of the latest album on stage, although I do not know were they billed as Pink Floyd. 87.93.197.184 (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Think this might be a mistake that needs fixing

"Dark Side is the world's second best-selling album, and the twenty-first best-selling album of all time in the US"

It can't be both. I'm guessing it should be the UK's second. For a start the world's second best selling is Back in Black

Why can't it be both? - Although the US is an important market, some records are more far popular outside the US
Sales are often argued about, as accurate figures are difficult to get, so List of best-selling albums has two columns "Music recording sales certification" and "Claimed sales"
These lists are sortable, and put The Dark Side of the Moon at No 6 and No 2, respectively, and Back in Black and No 5 and No 5= - Arjayay (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
It can surely be both, because the sales in US are much higher than certified. The RIAA has certified TDSOTM on 16 February 1990 with 11x Platinum and for the last time on 4 June 1998 as 15 times platinum. The album is during the last 16 years never been certified by RIAA. If we compare the frequency of certification to AC/DC's Back In Black (certified by RIAA in 1996, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007), than we can conclude that Pink Floyd's sales of TDSOTM are temporary underestimated. According to Soundscan 9,828,000 copies were sold in the US during the period May 1991 and November 2014. So the sales are today estimated at least at 20 million copies. The album belongs at least in the top 10 of best-selling albums of all time in the US.Christo jones (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

Pink Floyd was active both last year and this year so it should say that they were active. being active doesnt have to be touring you know. 46.246.129.234 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Whilst agreeing that touring is not a requirement of being "active", I only partly agree that they have been "active" in the last 2 years.
If The Endless River was a new album, fine, but it is "based on material recorded in 1993 and 1994" with some minor re-recording, mixing and overdubs - by a selection of people, not just Gilmour and Mason.
Personally I am not convinced that this means "the band" have been active, but, rather than refuse the request, would be interested in others opinions. - Arjayay (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There was a heated debate about the years active section and your removal of the 2013-2014 part, I'm afraid, might repeat the same thing all over again. My personal opinion is that the previous version of the section, which included the 2013-2014 period as active, was more accurate. If you take a look at this video from the official youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwumke98koo) you would see footage of David and Nick playing together at a rehearsal, which implies a joint effort of recording new parts in order to combine them with the older recordings. There should be a difference between the situations in which the band hypothetically released The Big Spliff without any major changes, and the release of The Endless River as it has been released. In the former case I would agree that there should be no years active added to the infobox, in the latter, I think there should be.--Milosppf (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I am being accused of "your removal of the 2013-2014 part" as I have never edited the article; however, I will mark the ESP request as:-
 Done - by another - although I suspect we haven't heard the last of this yet ;-) - Arjayay (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1995 =

They were also active in 1995 touring the world, so please change active years to 1966-1995,2005,2013-2014. Although the correct statement is 1966-2014.

What is the source of your claim that there was touring in 1995? The last concert of the Division Bell tour was October 29, 1994 at Earls Court, and the last Pink Floyd concert, not including Live 8.--Milosppf (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Pink Floyd is still active and will be active during 2014

Personally I don't see any reason why the years 2013-2014 are no "active years" for the band since they have released a new album and are doing promotion as Pink Floyd for this album. Pink Floyd consists today of Gilmour & Mason. They are allowed to record a new album and even to perform under the name Pink Floyd. They are promoting their new album as every other group under the group's name. So at least until the end of this year Pink Floyd will be active. Gilmour has stated that The Endless River will be the very final album and that there will be no tour to support this album. It would be better to indicate that the band will be inactive as of 2015.Christo jones (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Pink Floyd worked two years in the studio to create a new album The Endless River. The band was still active during 2013 and 2014, without any discussion. Pink Floyd is back, so still existing.Floydian Tree [1](talk) 13:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Was The Beatles active in 1994 and 1995?87.95.121.245 (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Citation for Monty Python Statement

Under the 'Recognition and Influence' section the final statement reads "Pink Floyd were also admirers of the Monty Python comedy group. The band, among other British bands, helped to finance the making of the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail.[citation needed]"

I found an article in the Chicago Tribune verifying this statement.

Being new to Wikipedia, I'm not a confirmed user yet so I couldn't edit this section. If you feel this is a good source, please add it to the page for me. Thanks!

--JeffreyLaser (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dismas|(talk) 21:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Article needs updating

The coverage from last year including The Endless River is pretty scant, and it feels like the article's been a bit neglected since GabeMc's departure. Does anyone think we should expand that section a bit from material available in the album's article? I'd rather have 2–3 paragraphs of concise information than 1 para + an overly long quotation.

I agree. Right now it's just some stuff about the announcement and a long quote. Popcornduff (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Popcornduff (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's "was", not "were"

Admittedly a minor issue, but still:

Pink Floyd were an English rock band...

Pink Floyd were founded in...


Pink Floyd is a band. One band. Singular.

Jack was a serial killer. Jack and Jill were serial killers. Pink Floyd was a band. Roger and Dave were bandmates.

See the problem? Please fix this at your earliest convenience. (Support your local Grammar Nazi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.90.4 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done
UK English, which, as the Floyd are from the UK, is what this article is written in, uses the plural for "nouns of multitude", so all those uses are correct.
Please see Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement for a fuller explanation. - Arjayay (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Archives

Is there more talk page archives? I found nine pages, ending in 2012. On this page there is only from 2015. Was there really silence for so long time? 87.95.46.22 (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, there are other archives - If you look at the talk page history (tab at top of this page) you will see the latest posts to be archived were put into Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 15 but the list of archives at the top, stops at 9.
The problem seems to be that in July 2012 User:MiszaBot I archived posts to Archive 9, but in August 2012, archived to Archive 14 - so there are no archives 10, 11, 12 + 13.
I assume this is why the archive list stops at 9 - it is waiting for Archive 10 - which has yet to appear.
I've made a mess of altering archives in the past so will seek advice on this. - Arjayay (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
OK - based on advice at User talk:Σ I have moved archives 14 and 15 to archives 10 and 11 respectively - these now appear in the archive template at the top of the page and seem to be working.
I have also amended the incoming links to the old archives, as there were only 2, so these now link to the right (moved) archive.
Let's see what happens when it next tries an Auto archive....... - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Blues Rock

I don't want to start a second genre war in this article, all I need to inquire about is Blues Rock. We have already established that Klose isn't a band member, so why shouldn't we build off of that? You see, in the talk section someone mentioned that he was in the band when they weren't called Pink Floyd, and that he took most of the blues influence with him when he left. Since I am saying things already established in the talk section, a logical conclusion to draw would be that Pink Floyd only truly was any sort of blues rock band before they got their name, and little influence remained by their debut album and adoption of the name, so logically, we should remove the Blues Rock label. We can do this in debate format if enough people disagree with me. Please weigth in with your opinion. Joshua0228 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

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


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)

So.. is my timeline going to be put in this new members page or not? Or are you still thinking about it? Also I've added in the 2005 reunion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICommandeth (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@ICommandeth: That page is under construction and in-progress, so be bold and add it, and also if you can, add (provided it's reliably sourced) the other touring members I haven't added yet such as Durga McBroom. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the timeline has been approved and since touring/session members have been added, I put in a touring/session color in the timeline, I appose someone add a second color to the touring/session members on the timeline

I'm glad that my addition a timeline to a page that everyone hated, then led to a creation of a page where it was accepted, I just want to say sorry for immaturity for adding a timeline without asking, and being a bitch about it when it was deleted for rightful reasons

A small error about their 1968 tour

I saw Pink Floyd in 1968 at the Atlanta Municipal Auditorium, and the line up was actually this- Soft Machine opened, followed by Pink Floyd, who were followed by The GUESS WHO. I remember this clearly because Randy Bachmann was extremely angry at having to follow Pink Floyd (who were magnificent and a little mind-blowing to my 16-year-old self) and lectured the audience before playing a 30-minute set. Most of the audience left after Pink Floyd was done.

I can't say as I blame him; how could you follow "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" and "Astronomy Domine" with "American Woman"?

James Webb jw@technochitlins.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.169.153 (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add the genre space

I consider a lot of pink Floyd's music to be space rock and think we should add space to the info box Pink Floyd iii (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed in the past, I suggest you put "Genre" in the Archive search box above and read the 9 threads that this produces.
I am afraid that what you "consider" is not really relevant - firstly we need citations where it has been used in reliable sources and secondly consensus (which is unlikely) - Arjayay (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Found reference for Gilmour not wanting to reunite the band

There is no reference in the opening section for Gilmour not wanting to reunite the band. I found this reference from Rolling Stone: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/flashback-david-gilmour-and-roger-waters-reunite-at-tiny-london-club-20130611

I put it in (incorrectly, sorry) before I realized it should be discussed here before a change is made. I pulled it back out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfishburne (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Put it in, it's good. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sonic experimentation

I think this section should be expanded a bit. There's no mention of Barrett's use of Zippo lighters, ball bearings, detuning, Binsons and feedback, which was pretty central to their early shows (and is mentioned in all of the books about the band). Also, there's a pretty interesting quote from Waters from some years back that I wish I could find... it might have been in the Omnibus documentary. Anyway, he's discussing their early "experimentation" and tendency to play long jams like Interstellar Overdrive and he basically says they did it because they couldn't really play well and it was a good way to cover for their (at the time) amateurish musicianship. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The name is derived from the given names of two blues musicians whose Piedmont blues records Barrett had in his collection, Pink Anderson and Floyd Council.[21]

I suggest to read the articles about Pink Anderson and Floyd Council, where, in both of them, it's said "He noticed the names in the liner notes of a 1962 Blind Boy Fuller LP (Philips BBL-7512). The text, written by Paul Oliver, read: 'Curley Weaver and Fred McMullen, (...) Pink Anderson or Floyd Council - these were a few amongst the many blues singers that were to be heard in the rolling hills of the Piedmont, or meandering with the streams through the wooded valleys.'", even there is no note related to source, anyway. Even more, in Floyd Council's article it's said that "No records are available which exclusively feature Council's work", and Discogs shows only compilations from his works. So it could be impossible to Barrett to have any record at least from Council. 85.59.118.157 (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2015

Greetings! I've recorded an article in accordance (I hope) with Wikipedia instructions.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:En-Pink_Floyd_Intro01-article.ogg


Now I'm attempting to link this file to the article "Pink Floyd" itself.

This is my first time narrating a Wiki article, and I'm certain I've blown it somewhere. Any help greatly appreciated.  ;-)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:En-Pink_Floyd_Intro01-article.ogg


Emailnewberry (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the best selling albums of all time

Reading the intro to this Pink Floyd wiki reminds me of pretty much any progressive rock band of that time. This isn't to say that progressive rock bands of that time sucked. But, there is no reference in the introduction of the article that The Dark Side of the Moon sold 58 billion albums (conservatively), nor is there any mention of the album staying in the charts for 21 million weeks(approximately). Also, when they finally dropped out of the charts after 21 million weeks, there's no reference to the fact that their fans bought so many albums, out of sheer spite, that the next week it was a top 10 album again. There's also no reference to them kicking so much ass, for such a long period of time, that the UK had to import colons from 1973 to 1994 just to keep up with demand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.30.27 (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2015

Hi All!

This latest Spoken word version of the Wiki Article "Pink Floyd" is 17 minutes, 43 seconds ("17:43").

I'm a new user with less than 10 edits, so I cannot attach this audio file myself just yet.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/En-Pink_Floyd_Intro02-article.ogg

I am humbly receptive to all forms of criticism, suggestions, and guidance.  :-)



Emailnewberry (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Emailnewberry

Already done It seems you've managed to do this yourself. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Extended intro required

Dear all,

In comparison to the articles of other successful acts such as Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Queen and AC/DC, the intro of Pink Floyd's article is too limited. Pink Floyd is one of the most important rock groups ever, so it would be good if this is clear in the intro of their article (with facts as arguments). I propose to expand the intro with the following points:

  1. The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is one of the most influential psychedelic rock albums of the 1960s;
  2. They have released an important number of studio albums, six in total, in the period 1968-1972, including some soundtracks and million-sellers Atom Heart Mother (first nr.1 album in UK) and Meddle (2x platinum in US). I believe that those releases are important enough to be mentioned, namely to indicate that Pink Floyd was already successful before the real worldwide breakthrough (with the release of TDSOTM).
  3. The success of Hipgnosis started with the album cover for A Saucerful of Secrets. Other bands did hire Hipgnosis, but Pink Floyd was the first band.
  4. Important to mention is also that Pink Floyd were among the first bands to use a dedicated travelling light show in conjunction with their performances.
  5. The DSOTM and The Wall are two of the best-selling albums of all time. This should also be mentioned in the intro (just like "Back in Black" is mentioned in the intro of AC/DC's article). The Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall are frequently ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time;
  6. Four albums reached the number one-spot on the Billboard Album Chart and even five albums in the UK;
  7. The concert tour in support of the rock opera is considered as a milestone in rock history;
  8. Their concert tours of 1987 and 1994 became the highest-grossing in rock music history to that date
  9. Pink Floyd won their only Grammy for Marooned (from The Division Bell)

In the intro is even not mentioned which instruments the different members are playing. I believe this is also important to add.

Suggestions are welcome to the below text:


"Pink Floyd were an English rock band formed in London. They achieved international acclaim with their progressive and psychedelic music. Distinguished by their use of philosophical lyrics, sonic experimentation, extended compositions and elaborate live shows, they are one of the most commercially successful, musically innovative and influential groups in the history of popular music.

The band was founded in 1965 by students Syd Barrett (guitar), Nick Mason (drums), Roger Waters (guitar, bass), and Richard Wright (piano, keyboards). They gained popularity performing in London's underground music scene during the late 1960s, and under Barrett's leadership released two charting singles and a successful debut album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (1967). The album is recognized as one of the seminal psychedelic rock albums of the 1960s.[1] David Gilmour joined as a fifth member in December 1967 as the lead guitarist; Barrett left the band in April 1968 due to deteriorating mental health. Their second album, A Saucerful of Secrets (1968), became the only studio album on which all five band members appeared and was the first studio album which contained an album cover designed by Hipgnosis.[2] During the Barrett era, dynamic liquid light shows were projected onto enormous screens behind the band while they played. Pink Floyd were among the first bands to use a dedicated travelling light show in conjunction with their performances. During the period 1969-1972, Pink Floyd composed the music to the movies More (1969) and Obscured By Clouds (1972), both directed by Barbet Schroeder, and Michelangelo Antonioni's Zabriskie Point (1970). Their fifth studio album Atom Heart Mother (1970) was the band's first album to reach number 1 in the UK,[3] while it reached number 55 in the US Billboard Pop Albums Chart,[4] eventually going gold there.[5]

After the release of their critically acclaimed album Meddle (1971), which was a group effort with lyrical contributions from each member, Waters became the band's primary lyricist. By the mid-1970s, Gilmour and especially Waters became the dominant songwriters, devising the concepts behind their critically and commercially successful albums The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), Wish You Were Here (1975), Animals (1977), the rock opera The Wall (1979) and The Final Cut (1983).

With an estimated 50 million copies sold, The Dark Side of the Moon became one of the best-selling albums of all time.[6][7][8] The Wall is one of the best-selling albums of the 1980s, and with over 23 million sold certified units (11.5 million albums) in the US, the album is the highest-certified multiple-disc album by the RIAA.[9] The song Another Brick in the Wall (1979), Pink Floyd's first single in the UK since 1968's "Point Me at the Sky", became a top-five hit worldwide. The concert tour in support of the rock opera is considered as a milestone in rock history.[10] A movie based on the 1979 album was released in 1982. The Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall are frequently ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time; Rolling Stone placed the albums respectively at number 43rd and 87th on its list of "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time".

Wright left Pink Floyd in 1979, followed by Waters in 1985. Gilmour and Mason continued as Pink Floyd; Wright rejoined them as a session musician and, later, a band member. Pink Floyd produced two more albums which achieved commercial success, A Momentary Lapse of Reason (1987) and The Division Bell (1994), and did two major stadium tours which became the highest-grossing in rock music history to that date. In March 1995, the band was awarded with a Grammy for the "Best Rock Instrumental Performance" on The Division Bell's "Marooned".[11] After nearly two decades of acrimony, Pink Floyd reunited with Waters in 2005 for a performance at the global awareness event Live 8. Gilmour and Waters have since stated they have no plans to reunite as a band again. Barrett died in 2006 and Wright in 2008. The final Pink Floyd studio album, The Endless River, recorded without Waters and based on material recorded in 1993–1994, was released in November 2014 and debuted at number one in several countries.

Pink Floyd were inducted into the US Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1996, and the UK Music Hall of Fame in 2005. By 2013, the band had sold more than 250 million records worldwide, including 75 million certified units in the United States. Rolling Stone ranked them number 51 on their list of "The 100 Greatest Artists of All Time".[12] Q named Pink Floyd as the biggest band of all time.[13]" Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Christo jones (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADLENGTH is quite specific:- with an "Article length" of "More than 30,000 characters" (like this one) the "Lead length" should be "Three or four paragraphs"
As for long leads in articles on other bands, Other stuff exists - that is not a valid reason for even more articles to break the MOS - Arjayay (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the outline as it is given in the bullet points but it perhaps should be included in a different way. It now has a a rather promotional slant, we maybe need to keep it a little more encyclopedic and avoid words like 'seminal' and vague accolades such as 'biggest band of all time'. Please ensure that consensus is reached here before re-inserting the text. Karst (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the lead could use some tweaking per Karst (although they are a seminal band, one of very few who are deserving of the term), but I'm firmly against the expansions suggested. The lead is concise and crisp as is, and gives the reader a good summary. Incidentally, Christo jones you don't need to carry citations up into the lead—I'm not confident you have carefully examined the style guide for lead sections. --Laser brain (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's very difficult to understand what I want to say. Look to the articles of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin. In the lead of those articles are several points mentioned which aren't mentioned in the lead of PF's article like the milestones (The Wall tour was a milestone), record-breaking tours, number one Billboard Chart positions, best-known song and best-selling albums. Pink Floyd is not a little third-rate rock band that released an album called The Dark Side of The Moon. No, Pink Floyd is the best-selling progressive rock band worldwide that released The Dark Side of The Moon, one of the 3 best-selling albums of all time... Somebody who don't know Pink Floyd, should immediately understand that Pink Floyd is a major group. At this moment, there aren't milestones mentioned in the lead. We even don't know which instruments each member is playing. The lead is written in a negative style: the drug use of Syd Barrett is not to be mentioned in the lead (all artists used drugs), Waters' opinion that PF was a "spent force" is not important (PF was still successful after his departure),...

Christo jones (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Pink Floyd's popularity in the US during 1968–72 wasn't nearly what it was in the UK, their first album to go Gold in the US was The Dark Side of the Moon. As for the Grammy award, for rock artists those awards, especially the minor ones, are often based on name recognition and are something of a dubious honor. I'd leave that one out. Piriczki (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
As Piriczki says, due weight is important in setting the lead (especially in a featured article which supposed to represent our best writing). While I would quite happily listen to the live Ummagumma over The Division Bell any day of the week, I am sure a cross examination of all sources will show that Pink Floyd's major success and importance began with The Dark Side of the Moon and ended with The Wall - if this were not the case, their Live 8 set would have been different. And as for the instruments they played - well here's a clip where they're all playing a different one to what you would think. I don't think there are any problems with the lead as it stands. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

50th anniversary plaque

I think the info on the commemorative plaque placed at the University of Westminster, where the band was formed 50 years ago, with Waters and Mason attending, should be mentioned in the article. It was an official visit by two founding members. More info here http://www.nme.com/news/pink-floyd/85776

--Milosppf (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Timeline graph

Does this article need a timeline graph ? It's not like there's been a long list of members. If a timeline is optional to individual articles then I support not having one. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, this has been talked about many times and always gets voted down. Dismas|(talk) 00:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 11#Members. Dismas|(talk) 00:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that's exactly what I was referring to. Thank you for the link. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, there is already one here: List of Pink Floyd band members, which is the only place it needs to be. – DLManiac (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Bob Klose

The band's official Facebook page, Bob Klose is listed as an official member. Why shouldn't he be listed as such here? [2]
Ulmanor (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you enter Bob Klose in the archive search box above,you will find 10 previous discussions about this - Arjayay (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Dark Side album cover

There seems to be some confusion in these words: "Hipgnosis designed the album's packaging, which included George Hardie's iconic refracting prism design on the cover.[106] Thorgerson's Dark Side album cover features a beam of white light, representing unity...." The reader is left wondering who designed what. Boscaswell talk 11:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2016

Change pink floyd where a english rock band to pink floyd is a english rockband Rev Weasel (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This article is written in British English and is correct. See MOS:ENGVAR Mlpearc (open channel) 01:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request April 7th, 2016

Could someone undo the April 7th edit (changing "ageing" to "aging"), as this article uses British English? Thank you. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The band is done

I hope this isn't a big issue, but I changed the "- Present" bit to "-14" to reflect the band's final breakup. If someone wants to include a "After the break-up" section that is fine, but we shouldn't have the article misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Tower Records

Normakku is repeatedly inserting Tower Records into the infobox even though I have told them several times that we don't include things in the infobox that are not written about and sourced in the prose. This last time, the added a citation to a web site (unsure if it meets WP:RS) but this is still not written about in the article. I'm interested in some other opinions on this addition, as this user shows no sign of stopping. --Laser brain (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Tower Records was a subsidiary of Capitol Records that released the first three Pink Floyd albums in the United States. I agree that it should be mentioned in the body of the article but there are probably a lot of articles that list record labels in the infobox that aren't mentioned anywhere else. A sentence could probably be added to the "signing with EMI" section. Piriczki (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016


188.159.7.23 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about use of flatlist in infobox

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist about whether some infobox parameters should be assigned to the hlist class. All this would do is remove the inconvenience of having to use {{hlist}}/{{flatlist}} on all artist pages.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"...the progressive rock band Pink Floyd"

That is how it's written in the following articles:

However, others simply state "...by the rock band Pink Floyd".

Shouldn't they all say "rock band"? If not, then who is making this distinction? Pink Floyd have always been a rock band. However, they're also identified with psychedelic, art, and progressive rock music. None of these genres should take precedence over another.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, they should say what ever each are, you are aware a grunge band can release a heavy metal album or song. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Is Merriweather Post Pavilion supposed to describe Animal Collective as an "American psychedelic pop/electronica/synthpop/neo-psychedelia/avant-garde pop/art rock band"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
In the article, sure, in the infobox, no. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
???--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's being argued here. Are you wanting to change the description of Pink Floyd in that first set of articles to "the rock band"? What's the harm in saying "the progressive rock band" if it's a progrock album? There's an argument for consistency I suppose, but this feels like a solution in search of a problem. I'd rather focus on improving articles where the genres are completely unsourced and thus attracting WP:GWAR. --Laser brain (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Laser brain: Some context is here. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what other people think about it. I think calling Pink Floyd a "progressive rock band" is reductive and misleading. If the standard is "the band's genre should reflect the relevant album", then should Piper state that Pink Floyd is a "psychedelic rock band"? What about other bands? Is Rubber Soul an album by "the folk rock band the Beatles"? I agree that most of those Floyd articles are in need of proper sources as well.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Also I'm asking this here mainly because of this revert. I found it strange that someone took issue even though both Dark Side (FA) and The Wall (GA) calls them a "rock band". And according to some editors, it's outrageous to suggest that there was a time when Pink Floyd wasn't a progressive rock band, even though they spent five years and five LPs as a psyche band; even though most of their prog albums could just as well be sourced to "art rock" or other related genres. Apparently, their psyche period was a "blip" in their discography. Does anyone actually believe this?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

On established articles where the genres have been in place for a while, and especially on ones that have been through a GA or FA process, you should plan to discuss the genre and get consensus before changing it. And marking it as a "copyedit" or a minor edit is misleading. That's my opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I understand that makes sense for when we're talking about the infobox genres, but for the band's genre in the lead opening...? It's not like we're going from "synthpop" to "new wave", it's "progressive rock" to "rock" - pretty minor to me.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

were?

"Pink Floyd were an English rock band" just looks odd. Shouldn't it read "Pink Floyd was an English rock band"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.19.81.233 (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is written in British English. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2016


There are several locations where incorrect grammar is used, specifically "Pink Floyd were." Pink Floyd, despite being comprised of multiple members, is a single group. As such, the three sentences in the introduction alone should be "Pink Floyd was." It may be common in other languages to refer to a group as a composition of its sub units, thus making the use of "(they) were" appropriate, but not in English. In English, a group, despite being comprised of multiple entities, is seen as a single entity, facilitating the use of "this (group) was."

I would correct these errors myself, but the page is locked. As such, please make the necessary changes where appropriate.

CDaly89 (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It is correct in British English. Popcornduff (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 Not done because, as explained above, "Pink Floyd were" is correct, and "Pink Floyd was" is incorrect.
UK English uses the plural for groups please see Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement - Arjayay (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

UK Music Hall of Fame

The UK Music Hall of Fame was a short-lived television awards show. Does this really merit inclusion in the lead section? Apparently, it also prompts the need to differentiate the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame with the awkward adjective "US" or "American". While it is located in the United States, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum is not limited to any nationality as the adjective implies. Piriczki (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Do not see any reason why it should be included. It should be replaced with a mention of the number of Grammy awards perhaps. Karst (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2016

Iloveartrock (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to edit Pink Floyd , please . I have some good ideas

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2016

Iloveartrock (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I want to Edit Some Genres , Change Acid rock to Experimental rock

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 22:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

One date is wrong.

Gilmour performed "Remember A Day" a week after Wright died, which is in 2008, not in 2015.It's weird, as it says so perfectly clear in the citation. But someone must have misinterpreted it. I wish it'd be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:250:3C00:1043:D07D:AD1A:6576:B144 (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sario528 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal: Psychedelic music

If interested, please offer support for a WikiProject focused on psychedelic music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

I'd suggest including a timeline in the members section - while there were only five members (excluding Bob Klose), their multiple joining and leaving dates get somewhat confusing, with six different lineups over the lifetime of the band under the Pink Floyd name. The timeline currently at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pink_Floyd_band_members#Timeline seems useful to me as a quick way to see at a glance which members were involved at which point. (Its only weakness is that it doesn't show when Wright was present as a session musician, which I think is worth including.) TSP (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Psyche-pop and acid rock

I added these genres particularly because there doesn't appear to be a source for "psychedelic rock" in the article, and because I've encountered other sources that describe them as "acid rock" or "psychedelic pop", which are distinct from "psychedelic rock". Actually, I think "psychedelic pop" is more commonly applied to them.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose to any of these genre's being added. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Genres

Mlpearc, Paintboxing is obviously a new editor. They had actually done their due diligence and asked about adding genres to this page. I advised them that sources are required and that they were likely to be reverted if the sources were weak. However, they seem to have added book sources for their additions. Can you explain what your objection is? I haven't looked closely—just trying to get a conversation going. --Laser brain (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that the purpose of the infobox is to provide a summary of the information contained in the article, not to list every single detail mentioned in the article. Four of the genres listed in the infobox are only mentioned in passing in a single sentence: "Other genres attributed to the band are experimental rock, acid rock, proto-prog, experimental pop (while under Barrett) and psychedelic pop." In addition, all eight of the genres listed have considerable overlap and considering how music writers use these terms casually or interchangeably, usually without defining them, sourcing, and hence this article, becomes vague and confused. Is the article saying that Pink Floyd performed in eight different distinct musical genres during their career, or is this just eight different ways of describing one overall style. The way it reads now it looks like the editors either can't make up their minds or don't know so they just threw everything out there. The broader term "progressive rock" probably encompasses all these styles to some degree anyway. Piriczki (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Can you please restore the article to a version before the genre warring [3], until consensus can be reached. Yes, Laser brain I know this is a new user, however my objection is, I do not believe Floyd is all these genre's and it will take some pretty reliable sources (Rolling Stone) before I can support the addition, many of the "new" genre's weren't even around when 95% of Floyd's music was released. - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Paintboxing is an obvious sock of Iloveartrock, who is known for mixing up the genres in Pink Floyd and TVU articles with bad sources (i.e. someone who writes "Pink Floyd are an experimental band" is misrepresented as "Saucerful of Secrets is an experimental rock album"}}. Check out these diffs

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Please remove the page protection so we can correct the page, thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a puppet sock, I just try to quote more genres than I think should be among the genres of Pink Floyd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintboxing (talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Another edit war, this time at Saucerful of Secrets. See these diffs: [6] [7]--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-blocked, from 24 hours to 3 months. Blocked the other one for three months, too. El_C 15:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

But it's correctly supported by the source, i don't now what is your objetion Ilovetopaint

My objection is that you're ascribing "experimental rock" to books where the phrase is not even written on any page.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Ilovetopaint Thanx for your input. Paintboxing please review WP:ILLEGIT, purpose of signatures and Wikipedia:Indentation. El C Thank you for reverting the "personal opinion" genre's. Happy editing all, - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not enough talk page participation, Paintboxing. It has been two whole days and you failed to engage this talk page. I switched the article to the other version to motivate you to actively engage—In two days, we'll see where you two are at again. Don't say I didn't warn you two about me ignoring all rules to motivate you both to discuss your edits. I'll just keep switching versions randomly if I have to! And as for the sock allegations, Ilovetopaint: maybe s/he just registered an account? Those allegations go beyond the scope of this talk page and are only serving to poison the well, in case you're wrong. Please take it to SPI, if you must. El_C 15:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Where do I go to suggest that further action be taken? The back and forth I've had between this user is extremely tedious. Ideally, I'd like to see every article he targets semi-protected for the next 6 months. I'm tired of reverting his edits over and over again.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Ordinarily, you need to list one article at a time at RFPP. Yes, I remember you (or someone) listing all those articles, but there wasn't enough recent disruptive activity then to warrant protection. Because we don't protect pages preemptively there, you'll have to show there's enough recent disruption for each of these articles, I'm afraid. Just list one every time a new IP sock shows up to disrupt the genres fields; if I'm around there, I'll try to prioritize the protection above the normal requirements. I suppose you can try listing all the articles at once, perhaps an admin will agree to protect all of them preemptively, but that is probably unlikely, sorry for the frustration. Just let us know whenever you see the sock and we'll try to do the rest. El_C 22:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Paintboxing has been indef blocked as an Iloveartrock sock, so the protection is probably moot at this point.--Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The article was previously semi-protected because the user constantly changes his IP to mess with the genres. This has been going on since November.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: ^ ^ ^ - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for participating on the talk page, anyway, Mlpearc! We have to assume good faith, until we don't. El_C 15:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Why pink floyd's genres aren't should : Art rock, progressive rock, psychedelic rock, avant-rock, psychedelic pop, acid rock and space rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.160.40.190 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Timeline again

I notice the timeline was just added again by @Cow42:, and removed again by @Dismas: due to lack of a debate on the talk page.

I posted the below on 28 January; nobody objected, or responded at all (See Talk:Pink_Floyd/Archive_11#Timeline). I'd suggest if no-one replies again, it should be added - it can't keep being removed on grounds of lack of consensus when no-one bothers to reply to attempts to establish one.

I'd suggest including a timeline in the members section - while there were only five members (excluding Bob Klose), their multiple joining and leaving dates get somewhat confusing, with six different lineups over the lifetime of the band under the Pink Floyd name. The timeline currently at List_of_Pink_Floyd_band_members#Timeline seems useful to me as a quick way to see at a glance which members were involved at which point. (Its only weakness is that it doesn't show when Wright was present as a session musician, which I think is worth including.) TSP (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

- TSP (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

A timeline already exists in List_of_Pink_Floyd_band_members#Timeline and duplicating it here would make this article needlessly longer than it already is (in my opinion). The archived talk about the issue is hard to follow, but at one point someone mentioned that timelines are frowned upon for Featured Articles. I could not find any such rule in the Featured Article documentation. Can someone confirm or deny this rule ? Fbergo (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking through featured articles about bands alphabetically: AC/DC - has a timeline. Alice in Chains - has a timeline. (Audioslave - had no lineup changes.) The Beatles - has a timeline. Big Star - has a timeline. I haven't done a full survey, but this article seems to be the exception rather than the rule among featured articles.
It would only take up about as much room as 5 or 6 lines of text, and, to me at least, convey information more usefully than the long list of years we currently have. TSP (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The timeline is right where it is supposed to be. This topic is long dead. @TSP: I removed AC/DC as it's also where it should be, Beatles & Alice have no other "members" page, where the timeline would if those pages existed - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
No timeline in this article, please. Needless duplication, adds nothing of value, endless magnet for drive-by tinkering and unsourced changes. --Laser brain (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017

Please correct a spelling mistake found in section 3.1 - "Disillusionment, absence, and non-being", paragraph 2, sentence 4. (citation [310]). Ageing has mistakenly been spelled 'agieng'. Van0014 (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Correct spelling is actually "Aging". Fixed. -- Dane talk 03:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Spelling depends entirely on locale. Ageing is the correct spelling in British countries. -- Van0014 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disbanding of Pink Floyd?

The band has never officially disbanded so describing them as "Pink Floyd were....etc" in the opening statement needs to be addressed.

Syd Barrett left before D.S.O.M and David Gilmour is not a founding member and we all know of the acrimonious court case between Waters and the rest of the Pink Floyd members, plus The Division Bell album is mainly a Gilmour & Mason production.

As Gilmour & Mason put out the last Floyd album - even though it is a "Best off" sort of affair that does technically mean that Pink Floyd are still active in some sort of manner so I support that the opening statement for the article show begin with "Pink Floyd are...etc".

Any other Wikipedians wish to comment before I revert the reversion?

Regards

Pam-javelin (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

David Gilmour has repeatedly, explicitly stated that the band is finished. He might change his mind later or whatever, but for now that's what we should go with. Popcornduff (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I can go with that (no Hall & Oates!).

Regards

Pam-javelin (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Contested insertion not fully reverted

Several editors have contested part of this insertion (ignore the yellow mark-up at the top, the blue stuff is what I'm talking about). Based on the IPs used in support of these edits, it's likely that two insertions are attributable to the same person - one on the 18th and one of the 28th. I'm not saying they should both be reverted, just wondering if they should be considered in aggregate. Samsara 21:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara: first, thank you for the protection :) . I'm not sure exactly on your concern, but @Ritchie333: should be able to figure this out, he's one of the constant patrollers of this page.- FlightTime (open channel) 21:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I reverted to the version before the concerns Samsara had. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pink Floyd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding Steven Wilson to Recognition and influence

Any comments on this? I plan to add this using "Genesis honoured at Progressive Music awards", BBC News, 6 September 2012 starting from the para around "...thanked his late father for introducing him to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon...". Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Having listened to quite a lot of Porcupine Tree, the Pink Floyd influence is very clear. If all that had been lacking from having him added to the list was a good citation, this looks like it. By the way, there's similar content on Wilson's article, including this ref:[1] although it is (presented as) an assertion from the article author rather than a direct quote from Wilson. Crowsus (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
For now, since I'm not that active, I support lazily just adding "Steven Wilson" to the part: Other bands and artists who cite Pink Floyd as an influence... with that minor modification. There's probably more that can be done in terms of getting maybe more details, finding a detailed reference or better placement. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rosen, Steven (2011-12-14). "Steven Wilson: 'Porcupine Tree Was Gonna Be A One-Off Thing'". Ultimate Guitar Archive. Archived from the original on 2012-01-08. Retrieved 2016-03-22. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017

Change "Pink Floyd were..." to "Pink Floyd was..." Danielh1019 (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done as that would be incorrect. As the Floyd are a British band, the article is written in British English, which uses the plural for collective nouns - Arjayay (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Now I know the idea of a timeline has been suggested by some on this page before, and I want to bring this back into discussion. I feel like a visualization of the entrance/exit of certain PF members would be helpful to some that come across this page. May I suggest an example (the colours can be changed as necessary):

Timeline

Best, TrevorABrown (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  • A Pink Floyd member timeline already exists in the List of Pink Floyd band members article. There have been previous discussions about adding it to the Pink Floyd article before, such as here [8]. In my opinion, adding the timeline to this article would be needlessly redundant, create a synchronization issue between the two articles and make this article even longer than it already is. Fbergo (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2018

......the superscript 37 is missing in the article, please check it Kshitizkafle (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "superscript 37". Do you mean Reference 37? Note 37? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I see your issue — Reference number 37 doesn't appear in the main article text. That's because it is indeed used, but is cited only once and as a reference for one of the notes (specifically, note 10). Thus, it shows up in the notes section, so no problems! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018

Please change 'Pink Floyd were an English rock band formed in London in 1965' to Pink Floyd were an English rock band formed in Cambridge in 1965. Gingercambridge (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spintendo      22:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

More (soundtrack)

I'm surprised there isn't anything about the More soundtrack in the article.Matchheadjackson (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC) matchheadjackson

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2018

Irbidan (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

In the first line change WERE for WAS because is only one band/one person.

 Not done: This article uses British English. See MOS:ENGVAR - FlightTime (open channel) 20:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Obscured By Clouds

A lot of goof Pink Floyd info....but how is it possible to have a Wikipedia article about Pink Floyd without including Obscured By Clouds (although it is mentioned in the discography)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.83.50 (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in the "Soundtracks" section, along with "More". But you're right - these two albums were artistic achievements in their own right and should have their own sections, not relegated to the Soundtracks section. Straw Cat (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_Floyd/Archive_11&oldid=1088805015"