Talk:Pink Floyd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pink Floyd is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Pink Floyd appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2006.

This article was the featured article of the Music Portal in July 2006.

Music Portal

	This Pink Floyd-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pink Floyd, their members, associates, albums and songs. You can help! Visit the project page, discuss an article at the project talk-page, or even join us!
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help:
dharmabum ^{(talk • contribs)}

Pink Floyd is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

WikiProject Echo has identified Pink Floyd as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew, Polish or Russian language Wikipedias.

Archives
1: February 2004 - February 2006 2: February 2006 - May 2006 3: May 2006 - July 2006

[edit] Album Sales

Floyd has over 250 million album sales, since Live 8 they have blown away the 200, and they even had more than that before it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.111.121 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Solo Work & Future Directions Article

I changed the Solo Work and more section from 1995-2005 back to present, for events such as Gilmour's tour and Roger Water's possibility of "The Wall" on broadway are ongoing events. Also, I removed this sentence. (David Gilmour and Rick Wright made an historic performance of Arnold Layne on Later with Jools Holland(broadcast 26 May 2006). Rick took the lead vocal in place of Syd Barrett.) Gilmour and Wright performed this as part of Gilmour's solo tour, and not as Pink Floyd. It has no relevance towards this article. Tkd73 29 May 2006

Why not?! Those interested with Pink Floyd would probably want to know that.

I agree - two of the three remaining band members performing a PF song would only not be relevant if there were a separate article about Gilmour-Wright as a duo. Otherwise we should remove the bit about Mason playing with Waters etc. etc. -- Beardo 22:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, information on solo members' work should be kept on those members' pages (which is why I've repeatedly removed detailed information about Waters's upcoming tour), but any collaboration between two or more members is relevant (but should be kept a brief as possible). Detailed setlists and so on of Gilmour's tour isn't necessary, but the performance of Floyd's first single for the first time since Syd was in the band is of some note, and could be included. That performance was on 17 April 2006 at the Paramount Theatre in Oakland, California, not the Jools Holland broadcast. - dharm a bum 01:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess that since in the future members of Pink Floyd may be collaborating together, instead of performing as a whole, there might need to be standards set on this. Items such as "Nick Mason to join Roger Waters on his tour", or "Rick Wright to join David Gilmour on his tour" would absoulutely qualify towards this article. Any studio collaborations between members of Pink Floyd I believe would qualify towards the article. However, I for one am against putting every single collaboration of any two members of Pink Floyd that may be broadcasted, simply because it has no lasting importance to the history of the group. The execption here would be any performance by Pink Floyd. (hence the Royal Albert Hall May 31st performance of Gilmour/Mason/Wright should be here, given the this is the most recent performance by Pink Floyd in a legal sense.) According to Brain Damage and A Fleeting Glimpse, Arnold Layne has been played on Gilmour's tour for some of his shows. Also, Gilmour and Wright performed Wish You Were Here on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, it just simply never aired. My main concern is that if we allow every broadcasted performance that might take place to be allowed into the article, it could very well get out of hand. Tkd73 01:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by this statement, however, if the performance of Arnold Layne was the first public performance by any member of Pink Floyd since Syd was in the group (I was not aware of that), than there is some importance to that. Therefore, I relent on that particular issue. Tkd73 01:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

We're in agreement, fundamentally. While collaborations between members are of note for the Pink Floyd article itself, the details of those collaborations may be too trivial to bother mentioning in the article - for instance, that Wright is touring with Gilmour on his current tour is notable and worth a brief mention, but every single song they perform dual vocals on is too much. It's hard to draw the line - is the fact that the first time Wright has performed his track from The Division Bell live on Gilmour's solo tour too much, for instance? - but it has to be drawn somewhere. The "Arnold Layne" bit is worth noting - it's the single that first made them famous in 1967, and it's (AFAIK) the first time that it's been performed in nearly 40 years and the first time with a lead vocal by anyone other than Syd, so that's rather notable. - dharmabum 10:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Roger Waters freqently played Arnold Layne in his solo tour in 1987. The media reports are wrong. Let's get this corrected and set the record straight. I don't have In The Flesh in front of me right now, but I know it was played at least twice. 207.145.105.170 15:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No one responded to this so I went ahead and nuked the offending section. It was then reverted. This will not do. --207.145.105.170 18:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this message - it got lost to me amongst the large rearranging of the talk page you did shortly after posting it.

I believe you may be incorrect, although understandably. I have several of the Radio KAOS concerts and saw one at the time, and in all of them the original "Arnold Layne" single is played by the DJ (actually, Billy cuts into the DJ's show and plays it "from his computer archives"). I don't believe it was ever actually performed. I don't know of any date on the 1999-2002 tours when it was performed, either. - dharmabum 20:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. It was only "played" during the Radio KAOS tour. At this point it is just a matter of semantics. -207.145.105.170 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "also known as"

The "also known as" header, under Background information on the side-bar, contains a lot of old names for Pink Floyd, names they were only known as prior to 1967. It was not until after 1967 that they truly became famous and well-known; the old names serve as nothing more than trivia and could be somewhat misleading to those unfamiliar with Pink Floyd. After all, nobody ever refers to Pink Floyd as "The Abdabs" nowadays. I suggest removal of the "also known as" section. --

Sounds fine to me - the names can be found further down the article, and the sidebar omits a couple anyway. Keeping "The Pink Floyd Sound" might not be a bad idea, though - they were intermittently referred to as "The Pink Floyd" and "The Pink Floyd Sound" as late as 1968. - dharmabum 01:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

they're referred to as "the pink floyd" on several occasions in the live in pompeii dvd, which would be footage from 1970-71, so i vote to keep both "the pink floyd" and "the pink floyd sound"

I'm not sure that just adding the definite article to the band's name constitutes "also known as", but they are certainly referred to by band members, even into the 21st century, with the definite article. I hope that your uploading and copyright information about that great 5-member photo sticks, as (after a couple different uploads deleted by copyright hounds) it's my favourite and, IMO, best photo to illustrate the whole band. - dharmabum 08:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing to remember -- one reason to put alternate names near the top is that there are redirects from many of those names, and someone redirected here ought to be able to see (without scrolling) why they ended up at this article instead! — Catherine\^talk 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, none of the bands mentioned above actually redirect to Pink Floyd, actually, except "The Pink Floyd" and "The Pink Floyd Sound", which hardly need explaining when redirected to "Pink Floyd". Those which are redirects point to Sigma 6, which has its own article discussing its lineup and how it's a precursor to Pink Floyd. - dharmabum 08:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambient Techno - Trance remixes

I have an Ambient and Ambient Techno (almost Trance) remix of Echoes (that is simply great, imho), but I havent found yet who made it. I believed, as many did in past years, that the Orb or the Orbital made it, but it has been proved untrue. See also the talk page at the Orb article. Does anyone have any clue ?--Doktor Who 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is the Limited Edition Trance Remix version, I have all of them except The Final Cut. They are by the The KLF, some members were also involved with The Orb, but the remixes are defiately by The KLF. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, but the point is that there are a couple of different versions of "Echoes" around, so, Im not really sure if the release you mention is the one I am mad for. --Doktor Who 08:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do these zillions of Ambi-Techno-Trance etc.Versions Really Belong Here? Well I don't have any thing against fans/producers/mixers techno-ambi-trance etc. versions of Original Pink Floyd songs.But I don't think we need them here.All such Version-Songs/Albums must be put under their respective titles for various forms of music,as they are in context to "VERSIONS" and not "Version Released/Mixed/Produced/Edited by PINK FLOYD ,only the various versions did by Pink Floyd,for e.g."A Collection of Great Dance Songs,Shine On,Works,Echoes-best of,Delicate sound of Thunder,PULSE,Roger Waters-The Wall Live in Berlin,ITF2002,David Gilmour & Rick Wright's recent live performance of Arnold Layne,Fat Old Sun and so on" IMHO are related to this topic on Pink Floyd.Any Comments welcome.--asydwaters 09:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Bands with only one constant member

Why does Pink Floyd belong in this category? I guess they're talking about Gilmour, but the Final Cut was a Waters solo album. --Macarion 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's Nick Mason. He's the only member of the band who's been with it continually since its beginning in 1965. Gilmour didn't join until 1968 and Wright wasn't a member from 1980-1988. - dharmabum 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That's correct; similarly, both King Crimson and Tangerine Dream belong to the same cathegory, but in those cases, the constant member is also the leader and main composer of the band. --Doktor Who 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's why it seems like Pink Floyd doesn't belong there --Macarion 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How many people have been members of Pink Floyd continuously for its entire existence? One. What is the category for? Bands in which exactly one member has been in the band for its entire existence. There are no other issues involved. PurplePlatypus 08:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I previously stated that ... in those cases, the constant member is also the leader and main composer of the band only as a personal comment that might be useful in a further analysis, I don't mean to oppose the inclusion in this interesting cathegory. cheers.--Doktor Who 08:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh...The Final Cut was no Waters solo album, and we all know the Mason thing. Numb23

[edit] References and notes

It seems to me that at whereas some of the notes refers to reliable sources, some, however, are of a rather doubtful quality.

Note 1 refers to About.com (wikipedia should not just refer to another encyclopedia-like site in this case).
Note 4 quotes the german newspaper Die Welt, but the link refers not to Die Welt's own website but to an indirect source (if it is not possibly to link to Die Welt, there should be no link but simply a reference to page and issue.
Note 5: the link does not seem to work.
Note 10: To back the argument that Pipers...is considered prime ex British psychedelic music, the website allmusic.com is referred to. Even though I am inclined to agree, personally, the argument does not seem very strong. It does not say who is he critic to make this judgement (it appears to be a guy called Steve Huey but I have never heard about him (yet I am no expert on music critics) and wikipedia has nothing on him!).
Note 11 refers to http://pinkfloyd-co.com which is a fantastic site, however, it is a fan-site and not an official site and therefore it is an indirect source.
Note 31 On an anecdote about the recordings of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" refers to an unofficial site. It does not even say who is the author of the original article!
Note 32 Same problem as note 4
Note 39 refers to an extremely unreliable source of information.
Note 42 is an extremely unreliable source of information which is also an indirect source.
Note 45: same prob as note 1
Note 47 is an indirect (however reliable)source. Direct information (e.g. from the record company) should be found.
Note 48 the link refers to an article which provides no source of information whatsoever for its claim in this case.
Note 53: Indirect information. Who is the author of the article? What are the sources of information?
Note 54: Indirect information. Information appears to be based on oral conversation.
Note 55: Same prob as note 4.
Note 58 refers to a magazine, yet it does not indicate author issue or page number.
Note 59. Is this a fan-like site? Who is the author, source of info, etc.?
Note 61 refers to an interview in USA Today but does not indicate author (i.e. interviewer), page number, etc.
Note 62: same as note 59

And I might have missed a lot........

A general problem is also that the same notes are used more than once which does that they are not always chronological. I do not know if this is wiki-style (I sincerely doubt it!) but this is not a style that I have come across anywhere else. The way to do it is to make a new note with a new number every time! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.145.105.170 (talk • contribs).

Bear in mind that this is a Wikipedia article, and while we strive to improve it (and the quality of the references) continually, it's not an article for academic publication, although it might one day reach that quality. The internet itself isn't an acceptable source in academic publications, even a freshman essay. The internet causes unique problems, and an acceptable source for Wikipedia can't always be dictated on strict guidelines; for instance, note 54 is based on an oral conversation, which isn't acceptable academically. For a Wikipedia article on Pink Floyd, a conversation reported on the most trustworthy Floyd news site between the site's editors and Pink Floyd's management is perfectly acceptable, IMO. Sometimes problems are caused, as with note 55, by the fact that the original source can't be linked or provided because it's on a subscriber-based website, and a link to an indirect source (once again on a very trustworthy site) is better than nothing. And sometimes, as in note 5, links just change or get broken.

As for the formatting on multiple notes, that is the way the Cite.php system works. It keeps the references section from getting overly long. There are still clear links between each individual use of the reference with the references section. Forcing a new number for each use would just inflate the size of the references section with redundant material and increase the KB on the article by around 10K on an article already well beyond optimal page size.

All that said, quite a few points you raised need addressing and I'll start chipping away at them. - dharmabum 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright: I see now that I may have been to quick in my criticism on some of the points, at least. Note 55, for example, seems, in principle, to be a good way to get around the problem (saying Music Week, 16 July 2005, retrieved here (with a link) on 9 July 2006). Though the author, i.e. interviewer, must be clearly indicated! However, the idea to indicate the "real" source followed by a link to an (indirect) source where the article can be found is in principle good, I believe. This method could, advantageously, be reproduced in note 4, 32,(and many others) so you do not click on a link saying Die Welt, for example, and then to be taken to an indirect source.

I understand that a wikipedia article is not an academic publication, yet I believe that the difference between the two genres is a matter of level of details rather than of reliability. In some of the cases where the notes refer to doubtful sources, it is basicaly not a weakness of the reference but a weakness of the argument of the article. E.g. is the problem with note 10 not only that it refers to a dodgy source, the problem is also that the claim in the main text is an overstatement (not according to my personal opinion but technically speaking). The claim that Pipers... today is considered to be a prime example of British psychedelic music promises more than it keeps given that (or as long as) nobody has been able to find substantial documentation. This seems to me to be a general problem also in the cases where more accepted sources are referred to. E.g. is the problem with note 11 not at all that it refers to a dodgy source (it does not), but simply that the claim in the main text is an overstatement as to the the reference it gives. The main text claims that Pipers... "is now viewed as one of the better debut albums by many critics"; this is definitely an overstatement since the note refers to only one article (i.e. not many) in the Rolling Stones from 1968 (i.e. definetely not "now"). In principle, there is nothing wrong with oral sources, for example, as long as they are not presented as generally accepted facts or as long as their validity is not overstated. If the main text could be formulated more in concordance with the documentation it draws upon, using expression like "according to some sources..." in the less certain cases, the article as a whole would appear more trustworthy.

Regarding the multiple note system, I still think that it is highly problematic (e.g. it will cause considerable methodolocial problems if I quote a wikipedia note in another context, since in the case a reader would like to track back this quote s/he would find that it, ambiguosly, refers to two different places in the main text!), yet I see now that it is considered "official" wikipedia style, so that must be the way it is. So, my apologies for complaining about it here.

Anyways, I think the Pink Floyd article is generally really really great. Good luck with the never-ending process of improving it!!--Jeppebarnwell 11:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like how the article mentions specific references in the text of the article. That is what the footnotes are for. Dates are okay because they provide context, but why does a reader care if DG talked to La Repubblica or Rolling Stone or East Podunk Village Weekly? -207.145.105.170 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this point of view, and I will change the article accordingly in a few days, unless someone will oppose.--Doktor Who 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waters' v. Waters's

The recent minor reversion only took into account one instance of "Waters's", whereas my previous edits were consistent: I altered them all to omit the final 's'. Although both forms are considered to be acceptable written grammar, the previous edit added a clumsy and unnecessary syllable, rendering the pronunciation as "Waterses". The Apostrophe article states: "...a good practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged best". Maybe it's just my judgement, but to my mind, I would argue that brevity wins every time. This minor quibble aside, I must add that it is a really well written and researched article. Chris 42 16:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Waters' is still pronounced "Waterses." --Macarion 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, "Waters'" is the British grammatical conjunction - so far as I am aware, "Waters's" is only American. And, well, Pink Floyd are a British band... Not the most convincing argument, but a consideration. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.97.248.74 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 September 2006.

Point of information: "Waters'" is not pronounced "Waters'es'", which is precisely why it's written the way it is. The additional "s" is plain wrong. Maybe not in the Americas, but anywhere else in the world. Cain Mosni 17:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The additional "s" is plain wrong ? Not in London (St. James's Park), nor according to the Economist - "Use the normal possessive ending 's after singular words or names that end in s: boss's, caucus's, Delors's, St James's, Jones's, Shanks's." (This is not UK vs US) http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=841359 -- Beardo 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite in heading

Is there a way to remove the citation from the heading "Top 20 singles"? It looks rather ugly, especially in the TOC (4.2 Top 20 singles[9])... -albrozdude 06:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] barrett

"Barrett died on 7 July 2006, reportedly due to diabetes complications." 1. The date should be July 7 2006, not 7 July 2006 so it flows with the sentance. 2. is it right to put in an official encyclopedia entry how he "reportedly" died?

i opt for putting "Barrett died on July 7th 2006, at the age of 60" until we are able to put ommit the reportedly

Pink Floyd is a British band, therefore British spelling should be used as well as British date formats. It was reported that he died from diabetes, so he "reportedly died of diabetes". How should it be put otherwise? "He died"? The reports on how he died is all anyone has to go on. Clq 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, I guess I should revisit pages I've viewed over the last few days that I found improper in regards to geographical spelling differences. Example: For Friends, one of the related pages (either a character or an episode) made mention of "colour" or some other word that either the Brits add a u to or Americans take the u away from. Since friends is a US show, that "u" has to go. Dudewhiterussian 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

With regard to date formats, providing the date is Wikified and entered as (for example) 7 July, it will display as either 7 July or July 7, depending on a user's Wiki preferences. Chris 42 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Average Track Length?

Has anyone ever worked out the Average Length of each song by Pink Floyd? I think it would be interesting to compare a Prog Rock band like Pink Floyd, with all their epic songs to a band such as The Beatles, with simpler compositions, and overall shorter songs. Just a thought Cowards 22:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I have the Pink Floyd Early Singles and all the studio albums and except Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother in my media library and it clocks in at 10:10:14. Adding the lengths of those two albums as described on their Wikipedia pages and deducting the live songs on Ummagumma, it arrives at 11:49:50 which is equal to 42590 seconds. with 134 items in my media library plus 5 song from Atom Heart Mother and 12 songs from Ummagumma (feel free to dispute the number of songs there) comes to 151 songs. 42590 / 151 = 282 seconds or 4:42 per song. Offski 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'More' Album

Would this be considered a Floyd album really? I know that they made it, but would it be classified as a soundtrack, or an independant album like say, Dark Side of the Moon? Kaiser matias 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone question that it counts as a Floyd album. I mean, seeing that it's an album consisting entirely of Pink Floyd music and all, to say nothing of several of the tracks being live staples for a significant period.

And at the very least, it's inconsistent to not count More but to include Obscured by Clouds, which is just as much a soundtrack. PurplePlatypus 07:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would humbly contend that the two albums in question may be appropriate for placement in the "Studio Album" category. Both albums were full length albums intended for distribution under the name "Pink Floyd", whereas the others were found on actual soundtrack compilations. I do not disagree with any of you gentlemen in the least, as both are legitimate soundtracks. Just putting out another friendly point of view. ASimmer83 06:14, 10 November 2006

[edit] Picture.... yet again

can somebody get a copyright clearance for one of the 5 member pics so the copyright nazi's aren't all over this again. the picture with 4 is not a complete picture of the band in its entirety, especially when such rare images exist

Sorted. It's not a clearance, but now I've found the source and added a rationale that 5 member pic is just as fair use as the 4 member one, if not more. the wub "?!" 16:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet Again, Roger Waters is NOT a member of Pink Floyd

Somebody once again has added Roger Waters as a current member of the group. This is not the case. Based on recent press releases, Pink Floyd is still legally David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Richard Wright. Last year at Live 8, Waters performed as a guest of Floyd and did NOT officially rejoin the band. Tkd73 24:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilmour's wife

Should Dave's wife Polly Samson be added to the "Notable or frequent contributors" list since she co-wrote many songs on the Division Bell? -albrozdude 21:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz influence on DSotM

The article currently says "Saxophone forms an important part of the album's sound, exposing the band's jazz influences", but just using a saxophone doesn't instantly make something Jazz. What exposes the influence A HELL OF A LOT more is the use of a 7/4 time signature. Besides, the influence was already "exposed" with the releases of semi-free-form, quasi-improvised 20+ minute tracks they had been doing for years. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Exposed" is probably not the best choice of words for the reasons that you have described (in fact, the article makes reference to "jazzy" songs before DSOTM). In any case, I think Rick Wright's comment that he used a chord change from Kind of Blue in "Breathe" would be more relevant to the "jazz influence" than the use of saxophone, although both should probably be mentioned. InTheFlesh? 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was on the Classic Albums documentary, right? Which just further enforces my point that the Jazz influence is in many ways more blatant than just using a sax. I'm not saying the bit about sax being "an important part of the album's sound" should be taken out, but it's barely related to Jazz at all. It seems to me to just detract from the whole influence issue. You can do more damage to your point with a weak argument than by saying nothing at all. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 03:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] album art

Should I keep adding the album art to all of their releases?Mastercheif 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about those images imbedded within the article text itself then I think it's getting way too cluttered. Some of the image alignments force very thin column that are difficult to read. I think we should reduce some of the unnecessary clutter. Ignitus 07:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote #53

"Waters was also invited to perform, but final rehearsals for his 2006 Europe/U.S. tour required him to decline"

Source: Video Interview with Nick Mason

Website: www.rogerwaters2006.com

I haven't watched the video, so I don't know if Waters makes an appearance. I do also note that it's from a Waters website.

Ordinarily, though, this strikes me as being a very bad source. It's what a lawyer would call "hearsay". The only person qualified to state why Waters didn't appear is Waters himself. Unless Waters appears on the vid, or its placement on the rogerwaters2006.com was personally approved by Waters and he endorses the content, a new source should be found, or the text reworded to say "according to Mason". --kingboyk 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sales (with a more reliable source)

After a comment at Talk:List of best-selling music artists, I noticed that the sales figure mentioned in this article is sourced from a wikipedia mirror site, which is really stupid for obvious reasons. The List of best-selling music artists currently uses [1] as a source, which claims sales of 200 million instead of the 250 million stated in this article. If you can find a source to back the 250M, please fix it at the aforementioned list, if not, please fix the sales here. Thanks. - Bobet 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually nevermind (unless someone reverts me), I fixed it myself since someone changed the sales figure a few weeks ago in order to put the band on the list in the first place. - Bobet 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covers

I'm not exactly sure where, but somewhere in the article we could collaborate a list of Pink Floyd covers. You know - bands who've covered their tunes. That'd be interesting because I know of several off the top of my head. Filter1987 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negative Aspects

I noticed no one that had anything bad to say about Pink Floyd.I agree , but there are so few articles that do not have a negative aspect about the subject matter. Perhaps this is of importance , Pink Floyd ; "not a bad word said" , could be a title for a song, hmm. Obviously the best thing to come from Cambridge! "Not a Bad Word Said - Wikipedia " THE SONG...

John Lydon's T-shirt, perhaps? Totnesmartin 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Band members chronology

Is a band members chronology really neccessary? The line-up did not change that much during the bands history. Most people didnt even realise that waters had left and they certainly werent bothered by the depature of Rick Wright. The same can also be said of Syd Barrett.

[edit] In Popular Culture

I've seen a lot of the other big artists have these types of articles. Why no Floyd one? Somebody should make one, and apologies if I just haven't found it.

The new "concensus" around Wikipedia is that "in Pop Culture" and "trivia" sections are very un-encyclopedic. They are slowly being eliminated fro most articles...especially pages like Pink Floyd that article featured articles. If those types of "pop fluff" are added into FA pages they usually end up loosing their FA status when the page comes up for review. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel a pop culture mention is encyclopedic, you could create Pink Floyd in popular culture article. There is a Category:Popular culture that many of these articles are in. Lets the main article stay high quality, while also allowing such information to be compiled. *Spark* 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article once sported such a section. It got too big and was cited as an obstacle to getting it to FA status, so it was farmed off into Pink Floyd trivia. PurplePlatypus 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tonite let's all make Love in London sessions

I wrote up a paragraph on this as it's now out on a CD. However I don't know how to put it into an infobox or put up a picture. Perhaps a more computer-savvy person could oblige? Totnesmartin 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert christgau

Would someone please remove the Robert Christgau album reviews - the man does not really know what he is talking about. I think he should be replaced by another critic who has proper reviews that consist of more than one sentence! Ummagumma23 December 1st. (UTC)

[edit] Syd in the Infobox

Just wondering if the Infobox should show when Syd (+ Roger and Bob) left Pink Floyd and more specifically that Syd left Pink Floyd before he died. I know all the info is in the article and 99% of people will know that Syd left in '68 but I think it could mislead the odd person into thinking Syd was a member of Pink Floyd up to his death this year. It's something I thought about changing myself but I'd rather link to see what other people think first. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it should say "(deceased)" next to Syd's name, because that does suggest that Syd left the band due to his death. Apart from that, I think the dates are OK being explained further down the article. -- jeffthejiff 13:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the fair use rationale?

Just a quick browsing through images and audio files and you don't seem to have any. This is actually a requirement for Featured Articles. Someone needs to fix this before the need for a review is brought up.--SeizureDog 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/n/Talk%7EPink_Floyd_7829.html"