Jump to content

Talk:The Division Bell/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Speech Synthesiser

Who did the speech synthesiser on 'Keep talking'? 207.189.98.44 00:13, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Its not a sythesizer, its Professor Steven Hawkings voice. I'll add that to the page. - Fizscy46 00:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The text concerning Stephen Hawking isn't quite correct. He's more of a theoretical physicist than mathematician and he speaks in the outro and between verses on 'Keep Talking'. Sorry to note this here, I couldn't think of a good way to phrase the latter point. - 82.41.26.114 02:40, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Where in the album sleeve does it say ezrin played drums?


Cluster One/Publius Enigma

Does anyone know in which frequency range (ELF/VLF/ULF) the crunching noises at the beginning of Cluster One are actually in? It might be a neat thing to have on both pages.

Also, I think it might be appropriate to have a little blurb about the Publius Enigma bit that links to the actual article page, because it was a major thing revolving around this album. Anyone want to write that up before I take a (rather poor) stab at it? 24.138.53.20 03:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Query about "Current status of the Enigma". This article cites it as having been "apparently solved within a few years" but the article on the Enigma article itself says it remains unsolved. I'm unsure as to which is correct, having no direct knowledge of the events, but I thought this should be brought to attention. I intend to post a similar message on the talk of the article for the Publius Enigma. Gamesmaster 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger Waters Interpretation

Why the hostility toward adding a comment about the (pretty obvious to me) interpretation that the lyrics were written about Roger Waters? You may disagree that the album is about their relationship, but I find it puzzling that any reference at all to it is automatically deleted by various fans.

In my second edit, I acknowledged that some people think it's not correct. So what's the problem? Should people not be allowed to make up their own mind? Nairebis 21:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a biased opinion with no official source. As I see it, it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. I remember reading a David Gilmour interview in a guitar magazine some years ago where he stated that Division Bell was about miscommunication issues (and also talked about how Douglas Adams picked the album title, and other information about the album). I will try to locate the reference (or maybe some online interview with him) and, if I find it, I'll add a paragraph mentioning the "official" intention of the album. From all that I know about Gilmour, Waters and Pink Floyd, Gilmour would not be so childish to "offend" Roger and use a Pink Floyd album to fuel their differences, so I find your interpretation very unlikely. I suggest you only place it in the article if you have a citable source from Pink Floyd (musicians, producers). Fan opinions are clearly non-NPOV. Fbergo 22:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Most lyrical interpretations are "biased opinions with no official source", unless the artist specifically wants to make his/her intentions known. An illustration of this is the song American Pie. Don McLean has specifically refused to offer interpretations of his lyrics, yet that doesn't stop fans from offering interpretations. If you view the American Pie wikipedia entry on the song, you will note there are opinions offered on the lyrics.

I think it's a little silly to have a policy that there shall be absolutely no lyrical interpretation on any song or album unless it's specifically cited by the artist.

As for whether Gilmour would reveal his personal feelings in an album, well, they've already discussed their feelings about Syd Barrett. Unless you're Gilmour in disguise, I think it's pretty presumptuous to speak for him on what he would or wouldn't do, especially with the notoriously bad feelings among everyone. Nairebis 23:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • My concern is about turning album articles into long sequnces of speculations. Here are some bits taken from Gilmour interviews, where he states that while there are a couple of possible references to Waters, the album isn't an allegory to the split. Here are: a Transcription of the entire interview [Interview] and comments about the intention of the album [Division Bell Concept] and I quote a couple of relevant question and answer pairs:
Interviewer: The album could easily be interpreted as an allegory about the split with Roger.
David Gilmour: I don't think that it is. There are a couple of hinted mentions that could or could not have something to do with him. But all that I read from people working out what they think it's about has been either fairly or wildly inaccurate. I enjoy that. I'm quite happy for people to interpret it any way they like. But maybe a note of caution should be sounded because you can read too much into it. 'A Great Day for Freedom,' for example, has got nothing to do with Roger or his 'wall.' It just doesn't. What else can I say?"
Interviewer: In "High Hopes", the lyric suggests that the seeds of division were planted in Floyd's early days.
David Gilmour: I think it's more about my early days and leaving my hometown behind. There is an enormous amount of stuff about communication or lack of communication on the whole album. But that's accidental. We started finding there were one or two songs like that, and other songs emerged that had it within them. It seemed to take over the album at some point and dominate the thinking.
Gilmour is also reported to have said (second link above) "I suppose you could say that, you know, there's a, a theme throughout the album which involves communication. And um, all, pretty much, all the songs are connected to the theme of communication, in some way or another.".
Since Gilmour specifically denies that the album is an allegory to Waters or to the split, maybe we should add a note to the article along the lines of "Despite some interpretations from fans that take this album as an allegory to the estrangement between Roger Waters and the rest of the band, Gilmour mentions communication as its central theme and denies the allegory intention, except for 'a couple of hinted mentions' (external link to interview, cited as a source)." I'll edit the article tomorrow if no one is against the proposed note. Fbergo 07:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotes; that sheds some light on the subject. To be fair, Gilmour does say that there are "hinted mentions", which at least argues that there is some validity to the interpretation, if not a central theme. If the song "What do you want from me" (one line of which says, "Sell your soul for complete control") doesn't refer to Waters, then Gilmour at least had to know that he was skating pretty close. [though, bizarrely, your second page's guy seems to think it's referring to the artist/audience gulf, which seemed pretty farfetched to me]

So perhaps there's a reasonable middle ground where it's stated that the album is not "at heart" about the breakup, but that Gilmour admits to some hidden references. Nairebis 05:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit done, sorry for the delay. Fbergo 12:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at the end of 1994 Gilmour's girlfriend Polly Sansom stated outright that Poles Apart was about Syd Barrett and Roger Waters. This was in a big PF feature in Q Magazine.

If that can be referenced and properly verified, then, by all means, include it in the article. But, until then, we should stick to what we have. -Mr. Mantis (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. "Former band-mate Roger Waters, when asked to comment, slated the album." What is it, to "slate" an album? Is this a Britishism I'm unaware of? If it said he "slagged" the album I'd totally understand. Just curious. Best regards! -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.255.182 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Publius Enigma

Who wrote that snipit about the Publius Enigma, and can anyone confirm it? I've read that the thing was organized by an EMI employee... but I think that story about him/her working for the Government is hogwash.. needs a citation or confirmation.

65.223.239.66 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)edgood1

The Last Album

I remember reading somthing about one of the present band members saying that they were stopping. Did I misread this? If this is true, could I change this to their last album at the top? --ASDFGHJKL 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Publicity

what was remarkable about this album was that it kind of rose without trace. There was VERY little publicity preceding its release in the UK - what little there was was mainly to do with the forthcoming earls Court dates. No single, no airplay, no interviews, it just Appeared. And a few days later it was number one...

LED

I vaguely remember a red flashing LED on a copy of this bought by a friend back in 1994. What was the story with that? Drutt 12:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You've probably mixed it up with P•U•L•S•E. --Krótki 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You're quite correct. Thank you. Drutt (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates

Why are there coordinates listed at the top of this article, like there are on articles about locations? It looks like a field in England. 67.189.143.203 (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The coordinates indicate where the album cover photograph was taken, which was obviously in a field in England. 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Mantis (talk • contribs)
The co-ordinates now appear twice in the article, and neither place states explicitly what it's about. This should be fixed. I see no reason to have it at the top of the article. This is not an article about a place. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the coordinates from the top of the article and have included an explanation of what they show in the Artwork section where it was appropriately written. -Mr. Mantis (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we have too much non-WP material in this article. It's starting to look like a fansite page. WP can link to fansite pages for more information, but it shouldn't host them. Currently, we have the following:

  • 3 audio clips of tracks from the album. This is far too much, and you won't see this kind of thing in other articles.
  • 13 images of artwork from the cover. Only a single image of the front cover should be used in an album article. I do agree that an exception can be made because this album has alternate front covers which are part of the overall concept. But we don't need the internal art. I should point out that WP does not automatically allow a cover to be used on every article about an album. Artwork is only supposed to be used where there is critical commentary about it in the article, and an illustration is necessary to help explain it. WP is rather lax about this rule, and allows an album cover in articles where the cover art is not discussed. We should keep in mind that this could change in future.
  • A lengthly section about reviews, with long sentences quoted. Why do we need this section? We usually just link to reviews from the infobox. There is nothing about the critical reception of this album that is very different from others of its type.

At this rate, there is a danger that someone will do a wholesale clean-up and remove half the content. If this is done by someone who isn't familiar with the album, they may delete a lot of content that should remain. This is why we shouldn't let pages get to this state. I would like to see a regular contributor do a sensible clean-up, before a non-regular contributor does it for us. (And yes, that has happened on other Pink Floyd pages recently!) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to each of the given points:
  • Audio clips are included in a multitude of album articles, of which include a few Featured Articles, such as Adore (album), Be Here Now (album), Californication (album) (which includes two), Love. Angel. Music. Baby. (which includes three), and Doolittle (album) (which also includes three). Moreover, what better way is there to illustrate a musical album than to include some of the music of which is being spoken, particularly the best songs of that album (one of which won a Grammy and the other two of which were popular singles of the time)?
  • The artwork in question is included in... well, the artwork section of the article, which specifically mentions the inner booklet artwork as well as the cover art. Also, it has been noted by many who disliked the album that the only good thing about it was the album artwork. Considering that the art is, according to some, the only meritable aspect of this particular album, shouldn't it be included with its Wikipedia article? Not only does the inclusion of that artwork in the article illustrate that point (which will be included in the article when appropriate), it also fulfills the Featured Article criteria that an article have images where appropriate.
  • The final point can best be countered with a single question: When is the last time you have ever read a good (emphasis on good) Wikipedia album article that didn't include a Reception (or anything similar in title and purpose) section?
As has been made quite obvious at this point, it was indeed I who made such changes, and, quite frankly, the only questionable addition to the article would truly be the Recording section, which is just a long quotation by lead guitarist David Gilmour (I naturally feel that it should remain, but others may feel differently). The rest serves only to enhance the article in the nigh-impossible dream of elevating it to Featured Status. And, to be frank, isn't that the goal of every Wikipedia article? -Mr. Mantis (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Album cover speculation

The album cover shows a field and a church in between the two giant statues. The last words in "Time" from Dark Side of the Moon talks about an iron bell tolling across a field. Is the album title and artwork a connection or coincidence?

68.35.220.104 (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The lyric obviously refers to a church bell, and I don't think the object on the cover could be called a church bell. It's not likely PF would base a new original album's cover art concept on a 20 year old lyric from a song long dropped from their repertoire. Good observation, though. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But they did play Time (indeed, all of DSotM) on the 1994 tour, and the 1987 tour, and Gilmour and Waters have both been playing it on their more recent tours! Jumble Jumble (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

two mistakes

  1. Best album???

The Division Bell (including interviews which were recorded for the world premiere special of The Division Bell aired one week before its U.S. release) that the album was the band's best since their 1975 release Wish You Were Here.

The Wall is sold 23 million copies in the U.S. alone .. how could The Division Bell be the band's best since Wish You Were Here.

  1. Only Grammy???

The track "Marooned" was awarded a Grammy in the category of Best Rock Instrumental Performance at the Grammy Awards of 1995. This has been Pink Floyd's only Grammy to date.

In 1981 The Wall won the Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical!!

please.. correct these mistakes? 62.61.164.100 (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Point one: it's a quote of an opinion of the band, and if they said it, it can be quoted. There is plenty of rebuttal in the Reception section.
Point two: corrected. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Save the Rhino Foundation?

"Adams quickly responded that he had a title, but that he would only tell Gilmour if he would donate £25,000 to the Save the Rhino foundation"

Here: http://www.zootle.net/afda/faq/Miscellany/Cosmic_Cutie/HomePage/Lyrics_and_Music/Pink_Floyd is written that Gilmour donated Environmental Investigation Agency - and £5000, not £25000. So which one is correct? Malusienka (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawking?

Does anybody know how they came to get Stephen Hawking to be on the album? Did they just ask him and he said yes, or did they know someone who knew him? Would be interesting if anyone had some info on this.

It says in the article it is sampled from a BT Telephone advert, rather than getting Hawking to do the lyrics himself specially. Apart from that, not a clue, sunshine--Cowards 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that it was actually the other way around, and remember a Stephen Hawking interview from the time where he was saying how thrilled he was to be on the album - I think that BT used the same text from Hawking subsequent to the release of the album, but will try to find evidence for this. Ndaisley 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For now I'm going to place it under needing citation until we can figure out what reference to place there.Drivec (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm... a question.

Was the album released on LP? --200.118.220.29 02:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Gatefold sleeve. Not sure how many copies were printed. Genethedancingmachine 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. The cover was as per the US edition.

Speaking of the cover, what happened to those icons? A lot of work went into them. Could make a great charity auction.

Or would do if "TDB" now had any kind of reputation worth speaking of....

I'm not sure about all of the LPs, but I have a copy in clear blue vinyl. I guess the LPs were printed as "special editions" because of the rise of CD.Drivec (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Album Covers

There were several album covers released for this album (one for the Lp, one for the CD, one for Cassete, etc.). Right now the image is from the CD release. I would like to change it to the cover used for the EMI LP version, with the CD version moved down to the lower part of the infobox, listed as an alternate version. Friginator (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? (Apologies for being anonymous - my WP account is long-lost) 94.192.0.168 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

sandbox

I've got this article in my sandbox, and have been working away at it. Its a very long way from being in a good enough condition to copy here, but I thought I'd better post the link so people could have a look, and offer any comments. Once this is a GA, I'll get to work on A Momentary Lapse, and finally the earlier stuff. Parrot of Doom 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cover image

The UK CD I have has the cover image with the 4 lights between the metal heads. Presumably, we're using the vinyl cover? Is this a Floyd-wide policy, or should we instead use the cover seen on the most common format sold upon release? Parrot of Doom 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Was Division Bell even released on Vinyl? I thought it was cassette/CD only?
Either way, I've got the version with the homestead in between the faces, but I bought it a couple years ago, not in 1994. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
My copy is from 94 and has the 4 lights. Yes, it was released on vinyl also. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends on where you bought it, meaning whether it was released under EMI or Columbia. European vinyl copies didn't have the lights, and the sky is almost entirely clear. In North and South America, the sky is partly cloudy and the lights are on. Both Vinyl copies have the text "PINK FLOYD - THE DIVISION BELL" written at the bottom of the image. The CD copies are different, though. The European version had the lights on, and the North and South American versions had the lights off. Also, the European copies were the only ones to have the words Pink Floyd written in braille on the spine. None of the original CD copies had text on the cover image. The cassettes were also different depending on the region, and the sculptures were different. They were smaller and carved in white stone. Friginator (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So which version do you think we now have on the article? Parrot of Doom 10:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The European Vinyl version. I was actually the one who uploaded it and put it there. It seemed more appropriate than the CD version. But I personally think we should include images of all six covers in the article, the same way the images from the packaging are included. Friginator (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, just to make things easier, here are images of the six original covers:
I think we could probably make an NFCC rationale for using the cassette cover as they're clearly different sculptures, but the other covers are far too similar to warrant their inclusion. I think we should be using the UK/Europe cover, since its a British band. The interior artwork - I doubt we'd get away with that. There isn't anything particularly remarkable about it, I'd sooner have the gatefold of DSotM on that article, but it'd never get through in a million years. Parrot of Doom 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't referring to the LP gatefold. I meant the images that were previously in the article (the faces as disco balls, boxing gloves, etc). I don't see why having all six original covers would be such a big deal. There are countless articles with alternate album artwork displayed at the bottom of the infobox, so showing thumbnails of the variants could probably be done. And for the record, I think the gatefolds for DSotM and the Wall are definitely worth including in their respective articles.Friginator (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the fight I had to get DSotM to FAC, you'll see there's little chance of that. You have to justify their use - take a look at WP:NFCC. There's no critical commentary for the interior images for the album, and therefore no rationale for including them. Parrot of Doom 22:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCC states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." When it comes to understanding an album, the gatefold artwork is very helpful in those cases. So being bold and adding it shouldn't be such a long, tedious and stressful process. If it's constructive, I would add it. People really shouldn't be fighting over things like that. Friginator (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters' comments

Regarding Waters' comments about the album "Just rubbish ... nonsense from beginning to end."[42]

It surely is notable enough to include comments by a former bandmate, but it is unacceptable to highlight (and thereby implicitely endorse) them as it was done before. Waters is not a qualified music cricic, his comments deviate wildly from the tenor of criticism (which is negative but not as damning as Waters' comments). His comments clearly stem from his strong dislike of anything Floyd did since his departure (after all, he tried to ban them from continuing). Endorsing opinion is a violation of NPOV, BTW. There was no justification for this.

Str1977 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand how you arrive at the conclusion that the use of a boxed quote is an endorsement of the quote contained therein. I used a boxed quote on Gunpowder Plot to describe Edward Coke's views on the Catholic priesthood. Does this mean that I'm prejudiced against Catholics? Or does it perhaps mean that I felt the quote to be so important, coming as it does from someone so implacable, that it deserved to be highlighted? Maybe you think that Waters wasn't the extremely important figure in the band's history that he so obviously was. Parrot of Doom 09:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I will not comment on what you do on other articles I haven't seen and certainly do not speculate about your motives. I would assume that you are innocently going wrong.
But picking out one of many appraisals of the album and highlighting it is a form of implicit endorsement because it is much more visible. If the highlighted comment was anyway representative of the tenor of criticism, I wouldn't mind. In this case, it is way beyond anything anyone else has said.
And in the end, such boxes are not needed in any way. Hence, there must be a good reason to include one.
Yes, Waters was important in the band's history (and in the band's demise) but no, his opinion on this album is not that important as he hated anything that Floyd did without him. That's his personality problem, not a basis for WP articles. Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
PS. UK and US is not about understanding but about good writing. And WP is not just for Americans and Brits but even for some in Timbuktu who may not know it. Stop your insults!! Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I note that once again you revert the long-standing version of the article to one of your own choice without any further discussion, behaviour which is nothing but disruptive. Either find some consensus for your changes, or pack it in.
Its unfortunate that you feel insulted, but not entirely surprising. Parrot of Doom 10:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
And I note that once again you have reverted me without any reason at all. Just because the quote box was there for some time doesn't make it right. How about addressing the POV issue?
Well, if you level insults like "nimwit", "my arse" etc. etc. - if that's your style, so be it. Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Does Str1977 have any guidelines or policies to back up their assertions? I can find one that contradicts one of them, Wikipedia:ABBR#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia, which states that it is perfectly fine to use US and UK. The only thing I wonder is if the abbreviations should be in parenthesis after the first, spelt-out variation of the words. As for the quote, it is encouraged to place contrast such as this. The article doesn't dwell on his opinion whatsoever, it merely states it. It is an opinion that is so vocal, and to some outrageous, that it is worthy of highlighting. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind having UK or US as long as the first instance (infoboxes excluded) has the full name. That's not such an outrageous thought, isn't it? Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to double check with the MOS guys to see if it's even necessary for such a universal abbreviation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't particularly object to spelling out UK or US in full at their first mention. That seems like a fair compromise to me. Parrot of Doom 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, then let's go with that, and find out if anybody else raises a voice. That takes care of one issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: fine by me. Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Its especially useful to have that quote there as a similar, but less predictable quote appears on A Momentary Lapse of Reason. Its the bitter nature of the dispute that's important, not whether Waters can be considered a music critic. Parrot of Doom 13:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The dispute is noteworthy and hence the quote is mentioned. Apart from the dispute it would have little merit. However, it is not notable enough to overshadow the entire reception section. Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is hardly the case. A quote box does not cause a quote to overshadow the section it is adjacent to, it merely highlights a very important or noteworthy quote that applies to the situation, similar to a photograph. I did the same thing on an article I wrote, Highway 401. There is a quote from the minister that planned the highway. The quote in no way detracts from the section it's in. The same is the case here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia; facts, whether positive or negative, should be stated as long as they are somehow relevant. In this case, the quote is most relevant. ~dee(talk?) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
May I ask you, Dee, to consider what the actual dispute is about: not whether to include the quote but how to present it. IMHO, this way it is a violation of NPOV.
Floydian, exactly it higlights the quote that in regard to critical appraisal of this album is not the most important or notable one. That's quit distinct from the minister who planned a highway (who would that be here, David Gilmour?). Str1977 (an experienced editor) (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is that the quotebox is not attempting to highlight the negative aspect of Roger's review, but rather the outrageousness of the comment against his former band mates. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, but I don't see how it is violating NPOV. "...representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." How is it violating NPOV? The quote is real, and whether or not you consider it significant is another issue altogether. The fact is: Roger Waters was a former member of the band, I consider his opinion is significant here--whether positive or negative. If you feel the box goes against NPOV, perhaps it would be a good idea to add another quote box with a noteworthy quote of praise from an important music critic [there are many, as I am sure you are aware ;-)]. ~dee(talk?) 06:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Floydian, The trouble with things is that they might have effects different from their intention. Furthermore, illustrating the outrageousness of Waters' comments seems more fitting in a context where the focus is on presenting the falling-out of him and David Gilmour. But keep in mind that this article is first and foremost about the album.
Thanks, Dee, for taking the time and clarifying but I am afraid you are still beating on a strawmen:
"The quote is real, and whether or not you consider it significant is another issue altogether. The fact is: Roger Waters was a former member of the band, I consider his opinion is significant here--whether positive or negative."
That the quote is real and that it is significant is not an issue at all, at least not among us. Yes, sure Waters' opinion is significant and I never proposed removing it. The issue is merely whether we should highlight and thereby endorse it. It is the latter that's a NPOV violation. I am sorry that you keep on confusing the two. Str1977 (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
How on Earth is highlighting it endorsing it? To endorse means to approve. If I specify facts, I am not necessarily endorsing those facts. While slightly offtopic, if I quoted that an otherwise famous man raped 10 women and provided a reliable source, am I endorsing his actions? No, I am stating facts. I believe it is highlighted because it is very significant that a former member of the band makes such outrageous [and perhaps even unjustifiable] remarks; however, that doesn't mean the article is [endorsing] that The Division Bell is "just rubbish" and I don't see how you can see it as so. Again, perhaps it would be a good idea to add another quote box with a noteworthy quote of praise from an important music critic so there is a sense of balance. ~dee(talk?) 09:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you quickly browse that section, the comments by Waters will immediately spring into your eye and create the impression that it is the most important criticial appraisal of the album. However, it is not - it is more (as Floydian said) relevant in the context of post-split suabbling.
Your comparison is off the mark. If you had a section about a famous man being reported of raping 10 women, with reliable sources, and one report - written by a longstanding enemy of that man - that he not only raped these ten but also killed and canabilised 50 - would you then think it proper to highlight the "report of 50"?
Adding another appraisal would certainly be an option but if I do so, will I have your support when the inevitable revert comes? Str1977 (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not the most important critical appraisal, but it is an important insight and, correct me if I'm wrong, grabs a reader's attention to continue reading. As for the rape/canabilism example, of course not, because that is not his opinion—he stated an inaccurate/false fact. If this [famous] longstanding enemy were to give his opinion of the man's actions, calling him inhuman, for instance, would be acceptable. This is a better comparison to the topic at hand. Lastly, yes, you will have my full support as long as the appraisal is noteworthy and properly referenced. ~dee(talk?) 09:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You have mine as well if you can find something that fits the part. A quote by a critic that places this album above the Waters-led albums would be perfect! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is certainly plenty of material about the close releases of Waters' albums and Pink Floyd albums, but I've never seen anyone suggest that the two were in any way competing on this basis. Parrot of Doom 20:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"A quote by a critic that places this album above the Waters-led albums would be perfect!"
While that would be the perfect counter to the Water's comment, I don't think it would be the perfect solution for the article - as I said it is about the album and not about the Waters-Gilmour rivalry. The McCully commentary BTW comes close as it opens with a comparison between Floyd's and Water's success after 1985, though it explicitely does not laud the band's new material in that context. Str1977 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This was the best quote you found? 66.55.136.228 (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes but the Waters–Gilmour feud is a big part of the production and realization of both albums. Not only that, but he led the band through their best (sales-wise) years; his nasty comment is very relevant to this album. In tying together several sections of the article, it is an ideal quote to highlight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Album covers

As I understand it, there were a few different album covers. Is there any way these could be incorporated?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Like Parrot of Doom mentioned above, the covers are all the same concept (four of them the same object as well), and I have my doubts about whether or not they'd be up for long. I personally think we should include them in some form, though. Friginator (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually didn't even notice that discussion there. I'm for not including (basically) the same one several times (i.e. with the four lights...without the four lights...), but what about these:
  1. With a woman
  2. Darker with title at bottom
  3. Entirely different altogether

Are these legitimate covers?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen any of these used as official covers before. This is what I do know about the images:
  1. Photo from an interview with the photographer, Rupert Truman. Not used as a cover, just used to illustrate the size.
  2. A photoshopped version of the EMI CD cover, with a very amateurish logo at the bottom. Currently being sold as an (most likely unlicensed) postcard from France.
  3. Obviously fake. The heads are just the same edited picture of a Mo‘ai flipped, and the background looks like a shopped version of the EMI LP background. Most likely a fan-made screensaver.
So no, none of these are legitimate covers. The first could definitely be used in the article (just not as a cover), but the other two aren't at all notable. Friginator (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for answering my question.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
IIRC the first image illustrated the cassette release of the album. Parrot of Doom 23:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
The cassette didn't have the woman, though. Friginator (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with the fair use rationale

Then the procedure is not to remove it from the article (especially while repeatedly asserting the lack of said rationale). It is to question the fair use rationale. Take it to WP:FUR. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If the use of the image does not meet our non-free content criteria, it may not be used. There is no rationale for the use, and it so it may not be used. Please reread the criteria. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's your opinion that the audio file does not meet those criteria, but you've offered nothing to explain your opinion. Simply stating "it has no fair use rationale" when it clearly does is either a)lying or b)laziness. Explain yourself or pack it in, because you're looking at someone here who doesn't particularly enjoy being threatened. Parrot of Doom 17:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get too involved with this issue, but the file seems to meet all of the criteria. You also mentioned an image. Is there an image involved, or is this just about the "Wearing the Inside Out" sound bite? Friginator (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
And I agree with Parrot's sentiment. Threatening to block people isn't helpful in this situation. Friginator (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Keep Talking" be listed as a Single?

On the page for Keep Talking, it states that the song was a single, released March 30. We know and have reliable sources that this song made #1 on United States Mainstream Rock radio, so we at least know it was a Promotional Single. That's good enough reason to be a single. Should we list it as a single on this page, or are Promotional Singles not listed on Pink Floyd album infoboxes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RazorEyeEdits (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Album cover caption

The article here presents the album cover as the infobox without a caption. Due to there being 6 odd different covers, i want to add "European LP cover" or something as a cover underneath. I'm asking here first. If theres no response after so long i will go ahead and do it and for anyone wanting to revert they will come across a hidden message speaking of the talk page here. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers

I added a list of page numbers in different languages in the CD booklet.

User:Parrot of Doom reverted it with the explanation "trivial".

I beg to differ: I am not familiar with any other CD booklets that have such a thing, so it's a special feature that deserves being mentioned. People reading the booklet may wonder what this thing is - should they be able to read this on Wikipedia or not? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If the numbering is a special feature then perhaps you should add it to Liner notes. There's a limit to the amount of detail an article can contain - I think you passed that limit. Parrot of Doom 19:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you elaborate why do you think that I passed this limit? I tried to find which limit I passed at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and I couldn't find it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I've already explained why. Parrot of Doom 22:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, no, you didn't. You just wrote "trivial" and "I think you passed that limit". I think that I didn't, and I believe that the established policy is on my side. I also explained why it's wrong to say that it's trivial. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Choosing to ignore what I've written doesn't in any way validate your opinion. Parrot of Doom 16:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll ask again: Which part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or any other policy page did my addition violate? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The presentation (as a list) you chose takes up too much vertical space is definetly unsuited for the information it conveys. I beleive it should be placed as an entry in a 'Trivia' type section. Anon.178.236.83.7 (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
There is a policy against "Trivia" sections - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. There's no reason to put it in a trivia section anyway - it belongs to the "Packaging" section. How do you judge that it's "too much vertical space"? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Multilingual page numbering

We have a situation where User:Parrot of Doom has twice recently removed a section of this article, about multilingual page numbering in the CD's booklet, and did so the second time with no edit summary and ignoring a request to explain his reasons here. I had restored it, following his earlier removal of it, after another editor, User:Amire80, had initially added it. When the matter was discussed here previously, he failed to respond to reasonable questions from Amire80 on this page. There was no support for his removal in that discussion. The section should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom was right to remove it. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information.
At best, this information could be covered by a single sentence along the lines of "the page number is written in several different languages" in the context of discussing the album's communication themes, but even that I would hesitate to include. There's no need to take up so much vertical space exhaustively listing and wikilinking every language, it's trivia. Popcornduff (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not trivia. It's part of packaging and it's in the appropriate section. It's a unique thing that I didn't see on any other album. And vertical space is irrelevant (WP:PAPER). Are eleven lines "Excessive listings of statistics"? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:PAPER is not license to fill articles with irrelevant guff. The information is omitted because it's irrelevant and makes the page unnecessarily long, not because it's a drain on resources. Popcornduff (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
As Parrot of Doom before, you are again stating that it's "irrelevant" without explaining why. You are also making a personal attack on me by calling it "guff", which is "foolish nonsense" according to Merriam-Webster. Are you sure that it's foolish nonsense? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
It is not only guff; it is twaddle, pish, hogwash and balls.
You need a sense of proportion. The article should summarise everything worth knowing about the subject matter without going into nerdish detail.Tthat means we cover the recording history, the musical content, the critical reaction and so on - but beyond that is trivia. In the grand scheme of things, a very small detail about the packaging, however unusual, isn't important and distracts from the stuff that IS relevant. Popcornduff (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This list of words you wrote made me feel more offended than anything else that anybody ever wrote me in my ten years in Wikipedia. With that in mind, I ask again, are you sure that that is what you wanted to write? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Statue Site

Fooling around in Google Maps a bit, it looks like the field where the statues were erected and photographed is near https://www.google.com/maps/@52.390066,0.27191,14z?hl=en , just in case anyone's curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.87 (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Division Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Unclear references

Reference number 2 {"the very real possibility of transcending it all, through shivering moments of grace} has an unclear reference to the frontpage of a big website. It would be much better if this reference would go to the exact podcast/interview where this reference has been said. There is currently no way to check the validity of this quote.

Please update the reference or remove the quote. L104693 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Division Bell. 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) 01:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Unclear references

Reference number 2 {"the very real possibility of transcending it all, through shivering moments of grace} has an unclear reference to the frontpage of a big website. It would be much better if this reference would go to the exact podcast/interview where this reference has been said. There is currently no way to check the validity of this quote. Please update the reference or remove the quote. L104693 (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Division_Bell/Archive_1&oldid=1137231702"