Jump to content

Talk:Daft Punk/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Anime in relation to Daft Punk?

Is it just me or are the members of Daft Punk fans of Anime? A lot of the Daft Punk videos on YouTube are Daft Punk audio played over various Anime, are these official videos or just fan made? I'm assuming that most are fan made, but it is hard to find the actual official videos if this is the case. This article doesn't mention anything about Anime, so perhaps there is nothing to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullo exclamation mark (talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Daft Punk produced the feature-length anime film Interstella 5555 featuring their album Discovery as its soundtrack. It's essentially a music video of the entire album. just64helpin (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

War?

Just64Helpin, you seem to be having a bit of an edit war? 72.135.101.78 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my most recent edits to the article. If so, I'll explain: Leftovers is an unofficial compilation that was mistakenly added to the iTunes Store and subsequently removed from the store. The "Darlin'" subheading is redundant and unneeded (see WP:MOS for further info on formatting). Lastly the "Yama Dirty Crew" bit was unsourced and brings up zero hits in Google. In short, it isn't so much an edit war as it is the result of excessive littering in an underwatched page. just64helpin (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the info. 72.135.101.78 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Space's influence on Daft Punk

Just wondering why there is no mention of French Band, Space as Daft Punk clearly drew their persona / stage presence / costumes from this band, even if they don't mention this. I suggest watching 'Magic Fly' (by Space) video on Youtube as an illustration. I think that this article would be richer for a mention of the similarities of the two bands and lead those who visit this page to investigate Space further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyphonix (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Such a comparison would be considered original research. Please see WP:NOR for further information. just64helpin (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."

Ok this is not my subjective view, I should have elaborated that certain individuals in the music press and industry have expressed the same opinion of which I can locate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyphonix (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the cited information would probably go in the "Influences" section. just64helpin (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

News

Here's some new information about... um, Daft Punk stuff. I don't really know what to say other than check it out: http://www.exclaim.ca/articles/generalarticlesynopsfullart.aspx?csid1=132&csid2=844&fid1=38374 72.135.101.78 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the Thomas Bangalter article. just64helpin (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


Reference overhaul

Who else wants to go through all of the references and see is they work? There's a couple of sources already marked as dead links and have been for a couple months now. I think it's time to look for new sources or just remove the statements. Here's a link to the external link checker. I do have to note there's one link on there marked as dead but it's really not. I might start checking the external links sometime later today and into tomorrow. Any issues that come up about it, just shoot a message to me or in this conversation below. Douglasr007 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Years in subsection

I don't think the years should in included as it's really hard to brand an era to the year as some events could have fell into two eras. Also, would it be safe to introduce a new subsection in the sense of "eras." The Human After All era is most certainly done and over with. We could brand the era with Alive 2007 so there's enough information to warrant the era. Then, the most present thing as an era is them doing the film score for Tron Legacy.

I don't know. It just seems weird to section the history of Daft Punk just simply by albums. Agree or disgree? Douglasr007 (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree - removing the years would be confusing for readers looking for a specific timeframe. It'd be safer to simply have a "recent projects" section for post-HAA material. If I recall correctly, Alive 2007 is considered part of the HAA era, both conceptually and musically. just64helpin (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well yeah I was saying we could merge Alive 2007 info to the Human After All era but yeah everything looks good now. Thanks. Douglasr007 (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think the way the "era" system is now, is about the most incredibly effective ways to describe the history of Daft Punk. It really should stay the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.110.17 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Daft Punk samples

Shouldn't it be mentioned that DP took most of their hooks from older songs? They just repitched whole songs etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.4.222 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See their album articles. Douglasr007 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kate's Birthday Party

There's a rumor that they will be playing at Kate's Birthday Party, a Facebook event that has over 63,000 confirmed guests.--ILoveSky (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Influenced by Kraftwerk

There are much influence by the band Kraftwerk. Both of them had a Song called Aerodynamik. And there is this Robot Human thing which is similar to Kraftwerks "Mensch" "Maschiene". And read this interview. http://www.intro.de/news/newsfeatures/23041569/daft-punk-exklusiv-im-interview --188.194.174.227 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Appearances in media and tributes" section

I have noticed that this section has become increasingly long, redundant and somewhat unmanageable. Beginning sometime tomorrow I will attempt to rework the section into prose instead of the current bulleted list. Feel free to leave any comments you have on the matter here. jhsounds (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that the section is becoming something that is against WP:TRIVIA. Yousou (report) 12:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reworked the section. More work needs to be done, but I think this at least distinguishes it from being a trivia section. jhsounds (talk)

Removing Banner?

I just now edited the lead to be a better overview. Is it good enough to remove the banner? Lucasoutloud (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Work on and appearance in TRON: Legacy

Please add information on their work on the score for TRON: Legacy and their appearance in the movie (as MP3 programs/DJs).--PENJrAV8R (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Both the score and their cameo are already mentioned in the article. jhsounds (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Eras and section titles

Hi. I just wanted to settle some recent confusion regarding the section titles and use of the word era. It was my understanding that the point of the eras was to concisely organize the "History" section by dividing it into subsections about their studio album releases, including all material related to those album releases. For example, Homework was complemented by a series of singles and several music videos, and the D.A.F.T. release that compiled those videos; therefore the album, singles, music videos and D.A.F.T. are included concisely in the "Homework era" subsection. The period in which the duo produced the music and videos is also cited in sources. The determination of "era" has nothing to do with what kind of masks they wore, and requires no original research. jhsounds (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Daft Punk Faces

As said in their interview, they'd rather not have their faces revealed. And We as a Wikipedia community are not a paparazzi or anything like that.

Even though it is maintained by the community, their page is still their page. If they don't want their faces seen, I heavily suggest removing them. If someone wants to see their faces they can go to some other site that doesn't care about people's privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryticate (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone re-added it... Don't know how to use wikipedia, but could you remove it? 98.145.211.102 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Photos of the duo without masks can be found easily in a multitude of places. Wikipedia is therefore not violating WP:BLP in this manner. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and removing a photo based solely on the artists preference is not a valid reason. Please refrain from removing the photograph from the page. jhsounds (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The photos of their faces are NOT directly related to Daft Punk as a band, rather related directly to the artists behind the band. Daft Punk has intentionally disassociated their faces from their band persona, therefore the photos of their faces are off-topic for inclusion in this page. Photos of their faces would more appropriately belong on their personal bio pages (on which they do not appear, as of the time of this post).--PENJrAV8R (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that their faces do not directly represent the music duo, which explains the helmets. It shouldn't be included in the the name of their duo. It would be the same as if there were an article that focused on the outer body of a car model, and then right below it would be a picture of the motor and inner-working components of a the same make but from 10 years in the past. It's irrelevant and doesn't makes sense to the article talking about the outer body. Yes the picture does reference the source of who Daft Punk are behind their artistic faces, but the article is about Daft Punk as a duo, not individual people. The artists individual pages should have their pictures, as it is biographical information. Kaigenji (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Daft Punk willingly provided photos of their faces in the earlier years of the career, as a duo. Therefore the "off topic" argument is rendered moot regardless of the fact that the duo decided on wearing masks later. The previous point still stands: removing a photo solely on the artist's preference is an invalid reason and generally bad form. jhsounds (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
If you can source this then gladly keep the picture on the page, otherwise it's subject to removal no matter how strong your argument may be. As for the "mootness" of others' arguments, not everyone is writing that "removing a photo solely on the artist's preference" is in fact a valid point. Kaigenji (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You can probably just search for press kits of the period, but for ease of clarity, they willingly showed themselves for this periodical for example. jhsounds (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


So as it stands right now I understand that jhsounds argues: Since Daft Punk had revealed their face prior to officially disassociating their faces with the Duo, their pictures should not be removed. Where I agree that this is totally valid conclusion—the level of, I guess, "correctness"—seems not. As said by PENJrAV8R, Daft Punk has officially removed its faces from the artists that form the Duo, so it doesn't make sense to include them (the faces) if officially they are not included to be a part of the duo. As far as I can tell Daft Punk has structured themselves in the following: [Daft Punk](Duo)----composed of---->[Artists](With disassociation of actual identity)----composed of---->[People](the actual people behind the helmets).

It's just like the Blue Man group minus many people playing as the three artists. Each Blue Man(?) is apart of the of the official "Blue Man Group", but the actual identity behind the Blue Men are not physically known. (i.e. their faces.) Kaigenji (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is eerily similar to the Mohammad article situation. I suggest you visit the Mohammad FAQ and read what it has to say about pictures, censorship and their overall relevance to WP. Given that the picture is of the artists, the relevance to the article is obvious. Removing pictures simply due to the artists feelings would be censorship.Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. Festus Mcracken 21:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festus Mcracken (talk • contribs)

First off please do not claim what others have said if they haven't said it. I'm not arguing for censorship. "Removing pictures simply due to the artists feelings would be censorship.Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."--I don't understand how you even came close to this? Where the heck do I say that I am trying to benefit a group? STOP ASSOCIATING THIS ENTIRE THREAD TO CENSORSHIP. THIS HAS BEEN RESOLVED.
As for "Given that the picture is of the artists, the relevance to the article is obvious." Why isn't the entire cast of individuals in the blue man group posted on their page?Kaigenji (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Skipping over the ignorance, I had previously stated that it is in my favor for creating Individual biographical pages for Thomas and Guy-man with the picture included. Kaigenji (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If someone doesn't make a response within the next day or two, then I'm going to remove the NPOV and the photo as is only used to resolve disputes.
I was under the impression that a consensus was reached; removing the photo as a form of censorship or due to the artist's feelings is a no-no. Simply stating "then why doesn't X have a photo on that X article over there?" is a weak argument because it is using an unrelated article to prove a point. This discussion should be about making edits to this article. As a personal note, I have no further interest in the discussion and will make no more attempts to restore the image in question. jhsounds (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I mean seriously, the guy is not advocating for censorship. He just said putting DP into biographical pages makes sense since their physical image technically isn't officially associated with the duo. Not one person has realized this nor mentioned this as a possible outcome. It is censorship to hide an image, not move it around. jhsounds, that type of activity is not wanted in Wikipedia; if you are standing on the grounds of what you just said, then leave as it is not a positive influence on our community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.104.32.5 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Please remain WP:CIVIL. Telling someone to leave can be seen as offensive. Thanks. jhsounds (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
A random IP address that has no solid history on Wikipedia advocating that someone who has been here for 5+ years that they're not a "positive influence on 'our' community" ? I think we have found the definition of irony, folks. ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of respect for the duo, we should remove their faces from this article. There is a reason why they always say that they do not want their faces revealed, you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.204.139 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Daft Punk maskless, unknown date.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Daft Punk maskless, unknown date.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Daft Punk maskless, unknown date.jpeg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Another album?

So far, Daft Punk has released their studio albums a consistant 4 years apart from each other. S\o another one should be released this year. Are there even rumors containing any further information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.101.78 (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit:) Hm, I don't suppose this would say anything more than what we already know? http://www.onemoredisco.com/news/new-daft-punk-album/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.101.78 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What, no one has anything to say? 72.135.101.78 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, to paraphrase what you said, it doesn't say anything more than what we already have in the article. just64helpin (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
But I'm getting so bored! I wish SOMETHING new would happen. D= 72.135.101.78 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Their website has been rather blank lately, yet bing previews it with an old mention of their "new" 2006 or whatever album. They have a nifty boxset of Interstella for sale, though. 98.145.211.102 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
http://fistintheair.com/2012/08/26/daft-punk-album-cover-leaked-possible-2013-tour/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.141.120 (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicer photo

IMHO this photo is a lot better than most of the ones currently in the article. Perhaps it could replace one. I leave it up to the regular editors to decide - SimonLyall (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A reverse Google image search seems to suggest that this photo is owned by Jim Dyson/Getty Images, so there may be some upload fraud afoot on the part of Wikimedia. jhsounds (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Good spotting. I've tagged the image for removal. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Remixers category

Should Category:Remixers be added to this article? According to WP:CATEGORY, categories should reflect "defining characteristics" of an article subject, and in that light, I don't believe that this category applies due to the notably small number of remixes from DP; indeed, they have stated that remixing is not really their thing. DP did say that they intend to remix Random Access Memories, but that hasn't happened yet and per WP:CRYSTAL we shouldn't assume that it is going to happen until we see something more solid. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

They haven't made any remixes. Atleast nothing very accessible, from what I've found (Which is nothing).ErdoS (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not sure if you're being literal, but yes, they did do some remixes early in their career such for "Forget About the World", Ian Pooley's "Chord Memory" and Scott Grooves' "Mothership Reconnection". jhsounds (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah thank you, I rescind my opposition to categorize them as Remixers. BTW are there any other remixes they produced? ErdoS (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: needs some album covers

108.38.164.75 posted this comment on 24 May 2013 (view all feedback).

needs some album covers

Any thoughts?

You will find the album covers on the articles for the individual albums, which can be accessed from the discography page. There are limits to how often these images can be used, due to copyright regulations. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
You pretty much answered this concern yourself. There are copyright restrictions regarding the use of album covers. I don't see the point of putting covers in the main Daft Punk article; images are usually placed to illustrate something conveyed in the prose, and the Daft Punk article doesn't even mention the cover art of any of their albums. jhsounds (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Real faces

We may need a picture of Daft Punk's real faces from debut days (not the magazine one). --123.2.142.50 (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Genre" should have a little more

They've done more genres then just "House". And if it's gonna limit them to one genre at least get specific and say "French House" since they basically invented the genre. I'd also include disco, funk, electronica, and progressive rock. Their new album doesn't have any House on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.142.85 (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Contact on Random Access Memories could be classed as house. Most of the rest of the album would be classed as disco influenced house. Legalways (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm gonna change this to French House. It's most fitting for many reasons: They are french, French house is highly influenced by Disco and similar genres, they have been regarded as the most POPULAR french house acts of all time. So yes I'm changing it, don't fight it, If sources are needed then they will be added but it seems incredibly common sense at this day and age. ErdoS (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I really have to say that they didn't made only House. Their albums contained French House, Electro, Electronic Rock, and also a lot of Disco. Also don't forget that they produced all the music from the movie "Tron: Legacy", that could be classified as Electro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aris621 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Daft Punk. 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 07:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Visual components and image?

Their so called "visual image" is a totally copy of a french experimental electronic band called SPACE from the 1970's. They would wear a helmet when he was on stage when preforming with his analogue gear that took up the whole stage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkURK7hg2l0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_%28French_band%29Starbwoy (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Daft Punk. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 21:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Daft Punk. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 02:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Live performances section

I've noticed that information about Daft Punk's live performances are increasingly cropping up in sections other than the "live performances" section. Older editors here may remember that this section was created mainly to house the massive amount of information about the then-new Alive 2007 tour. A separate Alive 2007 article has since been created, and the bulk of that information was moved there. In an effort to reduce redundancies in the Daft Punk article, I intend on trimming the "live performances" information further and merging the text into the "History" section. If there are concerns about this change to the article, feel free to discuss it on this talk page. jhsounds (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Daft Punk. 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) 11:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daft Punk. 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) 14:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daft Punk. 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) 13:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

September 9, 1999 at 9:09 am

Would it be considered too much original research to wikilink the bold text in this statement:

Bangalter once stated, "We did not choose to become robots. There was an accident in our studio. We were working on our sampler, and at exactly 9:09 am on September 9, 1999, it exploded. When we regained consciousness, we discovered that we had become robots."

to the Roland TR-909? I want to say it's obvious for people familiar with the drum machines (1999-09-09) but it gives new readers a chance to connect the dots at their humor with this statement. Interestingly, we might have verifiable sources to make the connection: the duo auctioned their TR-909 last year another source ♫ TheGridExe (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Certainly I wouldn't have been immediately been able to connect the dots. dannymusiceditor oops 12:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I'm saying it's not obvious nowadays (or perhaps like I said only for a few people familiar). Again, my interpretation is original research. ♫ TheGridExe (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Organism named after Daft Punk

I don't want to go futzing with a GA-status article, but in case there's of interest, the flatworm Baicalellia daftpunka was named after Daft Punk so that might warrant a brief mention somewhere or a See Also. Umimmak (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I added it to the “Tributes” section, attempting to make the description as simple as possible. jhsounds (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Source idea

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/feb/26/how-daft-punk-pushed-pop-forward-skrillex-erol-alkan

Associated acts

Just some clarification regarding the "associated acts" field in the infobox: this space is usually reserved for acts which Daft Punk (or individual members of the duo) have been a part of. Bangalter performed on Phoenix material in the past, but he was not considered a member of the band. Daft Punk co-produced a N.E.R.D. song, but Bangalter and de Homem-Christo are not members of N.E.R.D. I hope this clarifies this issue. jhsounds (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. For anyone who is curious, the guidelines regarding the use of this field are here. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

So the rationale for leaving The Weeknd in according to DannyMusicEditor is: "Discussion says 'usually'; an exception would be where this artist has guested on multiple songs that have been top-ten hit singles internationally. I'm prepared to discuss this." This appears to be a slippery slope, since quite a few guest artists appear on Random Access Memories for example, which is a high-selling album with many hit tracks. jhsounds (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the thing. Daft Punk appeared on more than just "Starboy"; in fact, the very next single released from its album, "I Feel It Coming", also featured Daft Punk. They were both top ten hits in numerous countries. On the other hand, we wouldn't add someone like Romanthony just because he guested on multiple songs, because only one song was a smash hit; "Too Long" wasn't a single (rightfully so, considering its length). I apologize for ignorance to RAM's guest appearances; I wasn't aware Pharrell was on more than one notable single release. I'd be okay with adding him too, but note that "Lose Yourself to Dance" was a good deal less successful than "Get Lucky". My point on the Weeknd remains the same and is definitely appropriate according to my experience. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I noticed there's a different description on the template. I can easily see Kanye West on there with the criterion Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together because of their production credit on the majority of Yeezus. This also can remove the mention of Stardust, Le Knight Club, and Together per "The following uses of this field should be avoided:" For groups: the solo careers of its members – The Grid (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I’d actually forgotten about the Yeezus collaborations. I’ll restore Kanye West. jhsounds (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, @Jhsounds:. – The Grid (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

French IPA needed

Even if Daft Punk is an English name, it would be good to have the French IPA pronunciation of it, since it differs from the English pronunciation. Compare with Steven Spielberg, who has a German last name, but the IPA is in English. Aikclaes (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The pronunciation would be based on English, since their music is composed in English, right? Their name came from a British magazine reviewing their short-lived music as a "daft punky thrash". Are you saying because the French have a difference on pronouncing the t? The word daft is an adjective so with how French link verbs to nouns - the t would be pronounced in daft punk. However, if you're suggesting a French IPA of just the words "Daft Punk", that's really not what the IPA is for, as that's just adding a French pronunciation of English words. – The Grid (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I just think it would be called for to add the French IPA of the band's name, since it's pronounced different in French than in English. A much better reference than Spielberg is British band Depeche Mode, who have an English IPA pronunciation of their French name on their wiki page. In light of that, there should be a French IPA pronunciation guide for Daft Punk. Aikclaes (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Cities Skylines: Concerts

Check out "Cities Skylines: Concerts". I think it would qualify as a Tribute or something to that effect.

"Cities Skylines: Concerts" features a band called "Elijah Moti" whose appearance is (I'm pretty sure) inspired by Daft Punk.

Image of "Elijah Moti":

http://cdn.edgecast.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/614581/ss_74fdba9d2aee2377a9d75198f92d5fe87e39a738.jpg?t=1503420708

Steam page:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/614581/Cities_Skylines__Concerts/

I leave it up to someone more knowledgeable to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.153.32 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Was/Were in opening sentence

Since this is an English and not a French article, the proper word is "was", not "were". -Object404 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In American English, which treats groups (such as bands or duos) as singular entities, it would be "is". In British English, which sometimes treats groups as plurals, it would be "are" (for example see Radiohead or Pink Floyd). The question depends on which variety of English we use for the article.
Obviously Daft Punk are neither American nor British, so I don't really have a preference here. I suppose an argument might be made that they have more ties to British English, as they were more successful in Europe (including the UK) before the USA, and were signed to a British record label (Virgin) initially. I don't feel strongly though. Popcornfud (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally, bands/sports clubs/political parties are treated as singular entities in French grammar, see the opening sentence on French Wikipedia "Daft Punk...est (not "sont") un groupe". This is a question of US/UK English as pointed out above. WP:ENGVAR, section MOS:RETAIN says that articles about things with no great ties to English-speaking countries have no reason to be in one variety over the other. Instead, the first variety used is kept. Personally I find that flies against Wikipedia's guidelines against WP:OWN if the first person to make the article ends up setting a rule on it for all eternity. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Section titles

@Jhsounds: Not really sure how Electroma and Alive 2007 are "tied to Human After All". IIRC Electroma contains none of Daft Punk's music, and so has no real connection to Human After All, and Alive 2007 contains music from all of Daft Punk's albums, so has no particular connection to Human After All, and it wasn't pitched or perceived as a tour to promote Human After All.

I think at very least Alive 2007 or the Alive 2016/2017 tour should be in the section title, as this is described by multiple sources as a turning point for Daft Punk's international popularity (much moreso than Human After All, which got weak reviews). Popcornfud (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Daft Punk's Electroma started off as a music video for the song "Human After all", but the footage was turned into a feature film instead. The Alive 2006/2007 tour prominently featured the Human After All album, so it is essentially the record being taken on the road. I can understand the rationale for the tour being worth mentioning in the section title, but to me it seems like it could potentially slide into every tour or promotional material being worth mentioning in every section title, cluttering up user navigation. jhsounds (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but I don't reach the same conclusions. The fact that Electroma started off as a HAA video is irrelevant considering it became something independent. I think this statement -
The Alive 2006/2007 tour prominently featured the Human After All album, so it is essentially the record being taken on the road
- is totally wrong - as I say above, that tour was emphatically not promoted or perceived as a HAA tour, and instead a sort of all-purpose Daft Punk superstar tour.
The coverage the tour received in recent retrospective sources observing its importance to their legacy and lasting influence on EDM persuades me that we need to include it in the section title; Electroma and Interstella are not nearly so important. Honestly, going by the sources that have come out since the breakup was announced, the tour was more important than HAA. I'm also not concerned about the slippery slope here, as Daft Punk only toured twice, and their first tour was barely noticeable. Popcornfud (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
If the argument is that the Alive 2006/2007 tour is worth mentioning in the section title because of its cultural impact, I should point out that there is already a "concert tours" section, containing a link to the Alive 2006/2007 article. jhsounds (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, but that section would contain the tour whether it was important or not. I am arguing for including it in the section title as a critical part of the band's history. Guardian: "It was their Alive 2006-07 tour that shifted the cultural needle ... as significant for dance music in the US as the Beatles’ 1964 appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show was for rock’n’roll, breaking the mainstream’s stubborn resistance to DJing as a valid medium." Popcornfud (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm proposing this as a compromise: we leave the less important stuff (Interstella, Electroma) out of the section titles but change the HAA title to "Human After All and Alive 2006/2007 tour". I believe this reflects the weight of these subjects' significance. How's that? Popcornfud (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I still feel that focusing on major album releases in the title is more consistent in distinguishing time periods. Perhaps "Human After All and Alive 2007" can work, as the live album is a product of the tour. That way the "concert tours" section can retain its usefulness as a way to navigate to the Alive 2006/2007 tour article. jhsounds (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd be fine with "Human After All and Alive 2007", which was the previous section heading, as Alive 2007 functions as a sort of shorthand for the whole tour. Popcornfud (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daft_Punk/Archive_3&oldid=1208464253"