Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Roger Waters
I recently reverted an edit that added Roger Waters as a member of Pink Floyd from 2005-present. I looked up information that supported this and found this. I'm not entirely familiar with Pink Floyd so I'm not sure if this means he is a member of the band once more or whether the new date should be mentioned. I'll leave that to others more familiar with the topic to decide. Cowman109Talk 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Despite the way that media outlet (and many others) phrased the Live 8 appearance, it's very clear on the official Pink Floyd and Roger Waters webpages that Roger appeared with Floyd as a guest at Live 8, and did not officially rejoin the band. - dharmabum 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- I really think that he should be listed under current members. He has been saying that he wants to tour again as the Floyd but can't because David doesn't want to. If there was a Pink Floyd tour, he would be in it, so how is he not a member? If nobody has any good rebuttles for this I will be adding him back. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Look back through the talk page archives for more details. The only people who can mount a Floyd tour are Gilmour, Wright, and Mason, as they constitute "Pink Floyd" as a legal entity. They could tour without Waters if they wished. Look at the official Floyd websites - it's 100% clear that Waters is not a member. - dharmabum 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Photo??? =
What happened to that great photo with all five Floyd members, including Gilmour and Barrett?
- It was, once again, deleted for obscure copyright concerns. This time, it was because someone asserted it was a non fair-use magazine photo, which it wasn't; it was a promotional photo widely distributed in the 60's which was downloaded from a magazine's site. No matter the source or information provided about any given band photo it always seems to get deleted eventually. - dharmabum 04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any other pictures from that very short era of the band--I know that they must be obscure, but there must be one out there.
Yes,that's utter nonsense,any fan of Pink Floyd knows that photo is not copyright;and its the only one with all 5 members apart from other 2 photos thats being used by all.We want it back here.---asydwaters 13:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank whoever put back the old photo, it's really much better. I'm not registered so I'm not going to sign.
Popular Ref. to Pink Floyd
Pink Floyd,the name of the band,titles of the songs,names of the albums and band members have been featured in many popular culture media. [[MAD magazine]]:The Super Special Issue #106 part of sub subseries title "Collector's Series No. #11" U.S. edition printed in August 1995 featured the "[[The Wall]]" cover of white bricks with black outlines on its "Contents" page.The phrase "All in all ,Its just Another schtick on The Wall" appeared in bold type in between the list of table of contents.There are many instances where the Pink Floyd have been used as in-joke by the artists and writers of Mad magazine.--asydwaters 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Omissions and Repetition
The section on the Gilmour led band has lots of duplication/repetition. It needs editing. -- Beardo 09:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Can you provide some specifics? - dharmabum 08:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Gilmour led bands????I know only of Joker's Wild and Pink Floyd that David Gilmour has lead.---asydwaters 13:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- He means that he feels that the section on Pink Floyd in the 1985-present has a lot of duplication/repetition. I haven't gone over it in depth in awhile, I'd just like to know what Beardo had a problem with so I could look at the section with some focus. - dharmabum 10:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As I've finally found this discussion page (sorry, it's my first "contribution"), I'll repeat what I wrote on dharmabum's talk page earlier:
I corrected your introduction of "Embryo". As I mention in the article, it was actually released in 1970 on a relatively obscure VA double album (which I wish that I had today!) Due to the resulting length of the "Embryo" discussion, I found it necessary to restructure the opening sentences of the 1983 paragraph. Hope it's okay. I'm not a native English speaker. --leifbk 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
An important compilation is missing from the discography, though it was released only in some european countries; I guess it is worth mentioning: it was named "best of Pink Floyd" or "Masters of Rock". Some info here BOPF. It was released in 1973, I had it on a cassette release 24 years ago; it contained the early singles, and actually it gave me the chance to listen to "Candy and a currant bun" and "Apple and oranges", that are not included on Relics.--Doktor Who 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, I remember Masters of Rock; I got a tape-traded copy in the late 80s, the first time I heard most of the singles. Since it doesn't include any previously-unreleased material it probably doesn't really warrant a mention in the main body of the article, but I'll add it to Pink Floyd discography. - dharmabum 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- My bad; Masters of Rock already appears in Pink Floyd discography. As I said above, the lack of previously-unreleased material doesn't really warrant main-body inclusion, and the brief discography in the article only includes major studio releases, not compilations or live albums. - dharmabum 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize, you are right, it is mentioned in Pink Floyd discography, though I could not see the cover. Actually, it would not be appropriate to put it in the infobox/template of PF albums.--Doktor Who 07:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Publius Enigma
Is it worthwhile adding information concerning the Publius Enigma phenomenon? See http://folk.uio.no/ericsp/ for more info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Draven5 (talk • contribs).
- There's already an article covering it, titled Publius Enigma. -- Longhair 10:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes and with the same link too.--asydwaters 06:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Album Cover Artworks?
Where is the in-lenght topic that was unusually bright and good on The Album Cover Artworks on Pink Floyd.Earlier it was under the section "Images OF Pink Floyd".?---asydwaters 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
why did somebody delete the "trivia" section????
????????
There's a Pink Floyd trivia article on Wiki, but this looks like an endangered species ... it has a "considered for deletion" tag.Grimhim 05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh!I see it now;why do they want to delete something so important that it can be found on many Pink Floyd Fan Sites???--asydwaters 13:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Go and vote to keep, everyone. -- Beardo 04:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Trivia on "Hey You" in The Wall (film)
Someone keeps adding a totally irrelevant piece of trivia about a deleted scene of "Hey You" into the article. The trivia is already in Pink Floyd The Wall (film), contains an unneeded critique of the video and audio quality of the deleted scene - not to mention it's a grammatical mess. I don't want to violate WP:3RR and the change keeps coming from different IPs. Am I the only one who thinks the article is already bloated enough without such a minor bit of trivia? - dharmabum 05:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right about "What shall we do now",Dharma.In fact its a trivial matter that the song was not included in the album but was included in the movie and the Live in Berlin concert.--asydwaters 06:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Where's the FA tag?
The one that should say "Pink Floyd Perfect Dark is a featured article, which means that it (or a previous version) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." I was wanting to see the nomination page to see if the issue of fair use of all those song samples came up and how it was dealt with.--SeizureDog 19:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Someone removed it to tidy up the top of the page, since it's clear it was an FA when it's been a main page FA, but hadn't thought that people might want to look back at the nom. I replaced it. - dharmabum 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm surprised it was the nomination that ended up giving this article so many audio clips. I had assumed that copyright hounds would have been against its use but I was wrong. This is good though, as I have a better understand on how audio clips will be recieved in articles. --SeizureDog 17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Spelling
I've said this in the Dark Side of the Moon article ad I'll say it here. Can we please use Commonwealth (British) spelling in the article? Call me a fuddy duddy, but this is a UK band. Even though I'm British, I'm considerate enough to use American spelling when editing American-centric articles. hedpeguyuk 11:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article does use UK spelling (and grammatical rules, such as treating the band name as a plural pronoun), and there's a comment at the top of the article mentioning it, but obviously errors get missed. It just appears you were the first to notice the "-ized"s all through the article. - dharmabum 21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually "ize" is as much an acceptable British spelling as it is American according to my schooling over 30 years ago, which is probably why it has lain "overlooked" for so long. Cain Mosni 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure one way or another; as a Canadian we have a tendency to use a bit of both. - dharmabum 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually "ize" is as much an acceptable British spelling as it is American according to my schooling over 30 years ago, which is probably why it has lain "overlooked" for so long. Cain Mosni 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
OK then, my apologees, according to the American/British spelling differences, "American spelling accepts only organize, recognize, and realize. British usage accepts both the older -ize form and the frenchified -ise form (organise, recognise, realise). However, the -ize spelling is rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, which is why it is often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism". I was always taught not to use -ize as it WAS an Americanism, that's schools for you. I was a bit grumpy when I wrote this as I'd just had an argument with one American who thought that the FIFA world cup article should have US spelling just because the US entered the first tournament and no British nation did. Rather daft reasoning, he lost the argument. I'll make sure I'll do my research next time although I still think that -ise should be used as it's the most used form in UK English. hedpeguyuk 08:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't suppose anyone's going to complain. They're both correct from my UK-centric point of view. I was just pointing out why it had gone unnoticed. Hope you're feeling less grumpy today. Cain Mosni 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Now in California?
Their Myspace page gives their location as "Whittier, California". Did they relocate there? Perhaps there should be a little explanation on their Wikipedia page. 67.166.144.32 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unlike the Dave Gilmour Myspace page (which is operated by Gilmour's label, Columbia), the "pinkfloyd" account is clearly an account created by a fan, probably one that lives in California. It's not a reputable source, and there's no need to mention it in the article. All of the band members live in the UK AFAIK, although all of them (save Syd) lived in continental Europe some time back and may still maintain homes there. - dharmabum 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Roger's main home is in the Hamptons district of New York State, but he does have large houses in Cambridgeshire and London. BotleySmith 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I think I heard that David's main home is somewhere in America too and if this is true, like Roger, he most likely has house(s) in the UK aswell. ( Davehard 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC) )
- Roger's main home is in the Hamptons district of New York State, but he does have large houses in Cambridgeshire and London. BotleySmith 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
"Future directions" section
This section is exceedingly long, containing endless contradictory statments about Waters and Gilmour's desires to do new Pink Floyd material - all well-referenced, but basically only of interest to the most avid Pink Floyd fans. It's way out of proportion to other sections, and the article could use some cutting. Does anyone have a problem with me condensing it drastically to basically reflect that Floyd will not be producing a new album or tour anytime in the forseeable future, while preserving the various references to interviews over the last several months reflecting their various statements? I'll wait a couple days before making any changes in this direction for feedback. - dharmabum 07:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable, dear Dharmabul, though I recommend you to avoid drastic cuts, unless such changes have been previoulsy agreed here, in order to prevent edit wars. --Doktor Who 08:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree; it's not like I want to remove the whole bit, but the constant "Waters said this, then said this" and then "Gilmour said this, but then said this 4 days later" seems too exhaustive for an encyclopedia entry; a summary of the various statements, preserving the links to outside references so people can look for more detail, seems to make more sense and will supply a tighter article. I'm trying to remember that this article should be more geared towards people who have never heard of Floyd and want information rather than people who are hardcore fans looking for precise details. - dharmabum 08:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you're right, but to prevent edit wars, maybe you can post a rewrited version on this talk page to see how people reacts to your changes. Floyd(Norway) 10:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree; it's not like I want to remove the whole bit, but the constant "Waters said this, then said this" and then "Gilmour said this, but then said this 4 days later" seems too exhaustive for an encyclopedia entry; a summary of the various statements, preserving the links to outside references so people can look for more detail, seems to make more sense and will supply a tighter article. I'm trying to remember that this article should be more geared towards people who have never heard of Floyd and want information rather than people who are hardcore fans looking for precise details. - dharmabum 08:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I created a revised section in a sandbox, which you can take a look at here. The references are a little messed up because it's just an excerpt, but I didn't remove any - actually, added a couple - and they'll look fine once integrated. - dharmabum 00:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think your revised section is much better than the section which is in the article now. Floyd(Norway) 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've actually made a whole bunch more changes, moving large sections to the "1995-present" section if you want to take another look (these sections have been bothering me for awhile and I got on a roll). - dharmabum 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with the changes and cleared my sandbox, which is why I struck out my comment above. I moved most of the material in "Future directions" to "1995-present", as most of it was in the past (why we had Live 8 under "future" I don't know). No substantive information was removed (mostly full quotes which can be found at the references anyway and repetition of information), several references were added, and I managed to reduce the size of the article by a couple of KB. - dharmabum 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Questions
Who was the bass player/vocalist in this video? --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Guy Pratt I think. -- Funky Monkey (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Most definitely Guy Pratt. - dharmabum 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Style
A Few places "Syd" and "Roger" are, inconsequently, referred to by their first names. Should that not be corrected? To me this style appears to be inappropriate and confusing (since they within the same paragraphs may be referred to by their surnames also).--Jeppebarnwell 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed the few instances I could find of the use of "Syd" instead of "Barrett", but I didn't find any uses of "Roger" instead of "Waters" (there's one use of "Roger" in the article without a last name, the phrase that "[Barrett] again [went] by his given name, Roger"). - dharmabum 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've just searched (Ctrl+F) for "Syd", "Roger", "David", "Nick", "Rick" and "Richard" individually and found no present instances of any of them not followed by a surname, except the one explained above. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 01:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
