Template talk:Pink Floyd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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!
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

I agree that the template as it stands now is really too big and bulky. The only real ways I can see for cutting it down to size are: i have terits

  • Getting rid of the album covers
  • Getting rid of the less important albums from the list

--Jacj 14:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the template as it is now is fine, giving a clear yet concise overview of Pink Floyd's discography. --Mmatin 17:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Two things. I don't think the album images add much to the overall look of the template. They add a lot of clutter. And where's Syd? Surely he deserves an icon? Compared to The Beatles, this template is a mess. -- Longhair | Talk 15:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. This template is far too big and messy, and the only way I can see to clean it up is to remove the album images. As for putting Syd as a tiny link down the bottom, that's just disgraceful. the wub (talk) 08:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone here agree with a slim line Beatles style template, including Syd, minus the album images? -- Longhair | Talk 08:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about a new section under discography, something like Unreleased Works, for things like The Man And The Journey (which I'm going to rewrite to make it fit the entire concept), the Zabriskie Point sessions, The Committee soundtrack, and the Household Objects project? Seems like there's enough to warrent a new section, even though a few pages will have to be (re)written. RttlesnkeWhiskey 13:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of overkill for the template, and indeed Zabriskie Point used to be part of the template but there was a discussion resulting in its removal. I certainly would like to see those things in the Pink Floyd discography, though. - dharmabum 20:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Added The Man and the Journey to Pink Floyd discography. Not technically an album or anything close, but still notable. --Alcuin 17:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Proposal to modify the Pink Floyd template style

[edit] Include Syd and remove the album images

  • Support -- Longhair | Talk 08:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --the wub (talk) 14:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support RedWolf 06:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- --Jacj 02:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - criminal that the template ranks him at the same level as Bob Klose. --High(Hopes) 20:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - wS 28 June 2005 20:33 (UTC)
  • Support - Hughcharlesparker 16:54:27, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

[edit] Don't include Syd and remove the album images

[edit] Keep the template as is

Other suggestions?

[edit] What to do with albums

Does anyone else think categorizing "important albums" is not the best thing to do? I think having a full list as it was is too bulky, but promoting certain albums over others seems silly. IanMcGreene 00:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. What I've done for the latest iteration is to list all albums but without including their covers. This ensures that no album is promoted over others while keeping the template to a reasonable size. --Jacj 11:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • following the consensus and the removal of the album covers, I've added Syd.

[edit] What's happened to all the pictures of Syd?

No Syd on the template nor on his page. Is there a reason why they have all been deleted? KrisW6 16:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably because who ever uploaded them did not provide source and copyright info which is required within 7 days of upload. RedWolf 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I have added a piture of Syd... I added souce stuff... I think It's good--IAMTHEEGGMAN 22:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable use of fair use images

I question the use of the images in the template for the member photos. Currently, all four are "fair use" and therefore I don't think the images can be placed into the template as they end up on any page that uses the template. I think the images could be used on the Pink Floyd and each individual article about the member but not on every album page. RedWolf 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to modify the Pink Floyd template style even more

[edit] Include images of ban members (including Syd)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Don't include Syd and remove the album images

  • This is not permitted under Wikipedia's policy on "fair use". See Wikipedia:Fair use, in particular the parts about not using non-free images for decoration, and not using non-free images outside of individual articles. --Carnildo 23:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Oh.... haha.... that's a good reason --IAMTHEEGGMAN 20:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Talk

[edit] Keep the template as is

[edit] Yet another modification proposal

Normally I would just go ahead and change the template (like I did with the others), but due to the history of this template I thought I would put it to a vote first.
I've been slowly (and sporadically) editing all band-related navigational templates so they conform to some kind of standard style - currently I've done Dream Theater, Iron Maiden, Rush, Nirvana, and Soundgarden; and I hope that eventually all similar templates will look the same. The Pink Floyd template is very similar in content to these other templates, so it would be a perfect candidate for this modification. I've already made the changes and saved them to a page under my user space (User:Plattopus/Pink Floyd), so please check it out and let me know your thoughts. plattopustalk 05:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Normally I'd say good idea... up till the Syd Barrett being at the bottom... surely he deserves to be at the top.... AND WILL SOMEONE TELL ME HOW!!! HOW!!! TO GET A DIFFERENT SIGNATURE... I JUST MADE THE ONE IM USING NOW IAMTHEEGGMANtalk 23:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

huzzah!!! for I have made a new version of it... see User:IAMTHEEGGMAN/Pink Floyd--IAMTHEEGGMANtalk 23:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

OK I've used your version for the actual template - no one had any objections so I take that as a yes. plattopustalk 14:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compilation Albums

Do you think that we should include compilation albums on this template (such as Relics and Works)? I think that this might be a good idea considering that some songs are only officially released on these albums ("Embryo", "Biding My Time", etc.). InTheFlesh? 08:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Certainly They are Pink Floyd albums, as well as a Collection of Dance Songs. 134.68.43.192 15:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Support, I wouldn't mind seeing a subsection of the template called "Compilations", which would include Relics (only source for "Biding My Time"), A Nice Pair (great Hipgnosis cover), Works (only source for "Embryo"), A Collection of Great Dance Songs ("Money" re-recording with Gilmour on all instruments but sax), Shine On (first official release of early singles), and Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd (first time all 4 "classic line-up" members worked together since 1979).
Support It IS a good idea. --Siva1979Talk to me09:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added them, if anyone objects reverting won't hurt my feelings. :) - dharmabum 00:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVDs and videos

I'm not sure that we need to have Zabriskie Point or More listed as Floyd movies. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have the films they were responsible for producing, instead of just soundtracking (Pompeii, The Wall, etc.)? The films themselves are of little interest to Floyd fans (unless they're also fans of the directors' work, which is irrelevant to a Floyd template), just the soundtracks, which are released already in the template. If not, then La Vallée should probably be created as a stub and added for the sake of completeness. - dharmabum 21:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Good point. I second that. Also, if people read the articles on the soundtracks, they can find out about the films. No need to put them here. Floyd is actually heard in several movies. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, especially considering that More is already listed in studio albums, and many other artists (such as the Grateful Dead) contributed to Zabriskie Point. InTheFlesh? 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we include Tonite Let's All Make Love in London? I'm not sure how a documentary focused more on the people attending a Floyd performance than the band themselves is relevant enough for a template, and once again, they weren't the only musicians involved. - dharmabum 21:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Zabriskie Point, More and Tonite... links, as I think Tonite... comes under the same criteria. If you think it should be added, feel free to do so, but the template look much tighter now after Justin (koavf)'s tightning up of the bottom section and the DVD/Video removals. - dharmabum 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subheadings

Currently, the template has subheadings like "Live Albums" and "Compilations" that link to the Wiki articles that define Live album and Compilation album. Does anyone else think that it would be more useful to link them to the relevant sections of the Pink Floyd discography, such as Pink Floyd discography#Live albums and Pink Floyd discography#Major compilations? It seems that linking to the definition of what a "live album" or "compilation" is is a little redundant, while the latter choice would allow removing the "Discography" wikilink from the "Related articles" section, tightening it up just a bit. - dharmabum 10:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection, I'm going to go ahead and do this; if the silence means lack of assent, feel free to revert me. - dharmabum 23:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 90% font size in template

Instead of an edit war about using 90%-size text in the article, could we have a discussion about it?

While I know that many other band templates use the 90% text size, there isn't a general project I know of that has dictated this (if there is, maybe this should be discussed there as well), but it has simply sort of evolved over time. There's no reason all band templates have to look exactly consistent anyway.

I feel that the 90% size is not ideal. It's hard to read, aesthetically unpleasing, tends to make the text run into the pipe divisions more noticably, and shrinks the overall size of the template almost imperceptably while merely increasing whitespace within the template, making its value very questionable.

Can we hear some other arguments so we can reach a consensus about this? - dharmabum 08:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A vast majority of Navigational footers on wikipedia use 90%, as do every single other template of :category:band templates, and so far I have never seen anybody complain. It's called consistency, and visual consistency is good in a visual environment. Unless you consider it necessary to remove the use of that font size in each and all templates that use it? Circeus 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've only posted here because it's on my watchlist along with many other Pink Floyd articles, and I saw a minor revert war a few days ago over the issue and hoped to prevent any futher undiscussed changes. I'd never seen the template without the 90% size before and was surprised how similar in size it was and how much better it looked. By extension, if it looks as much better in all the other articles that use it, I suppose I would advocate changing them all. I don't really care enough to launch a campaign to do so, so we'll continue to have ugly band templates, but I guess they'll at least be consistently ugly. - dharmabum 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tree full of secrets and man & the journey

i think there's a subtle difference between the two. The Man and the Journey article discusses a live show they toured with and performed multiple times. A Tree Full of Secrets is a specific bootleg collection of outtakes. Sure, the outtakes themselves are notable, but that particular compilation and title are not. Change the name of the article to "Unreleased Pink Floyd recordings" or something similar and change the focus of the article to the recordings themselves and their collective history and away from one bootlegger's work, and then I think it would be worthy of inclusion on the template. --Alcuin 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, most of Tree Full of Secrets is officially released. Why don't you create the article then. As it stands, much of the recordings on Tree is notable, so why don't you create the article. Until that article is made, I see no problem having it in the template -- after all, it's not like it's listed in official catalogue - it's in the related topics section.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/n/Template_talk%7EPink_Floyd_b02b.html"