Jump to content

Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Get back the old photo

You can't have a Pink Floyd wiki without Syd Barrett photos; the old photo with the full lineup, which includes both Gilmour and Barrett was the best. Bring it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.218.169 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That image was removed by Seraphimblade as a replaceable copyrighted image, disputing the fair use claim at File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg.
I am by no means an expert on our image policies. I know that copyrighted photos of living individuals are considered replaceable as it is at least theoretically possible to take a new photo of that person (unless they are, for example, a recluse). I do not know how we apply that to a band with changing membership. Obviously it is possible to take new photos of "Pink Floyd". Obviously it is not possible to take new photos of that Pink Floyd. Discuss. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it's more that it's conceivable that free images of that incarnation of Pink Floyd might exist, and it's pretty difficult to mount an argument that understanding of Pink Floyd is advanced in any appreciable way by presenting that particular photo. That's my understanding of the basis of a good fair use rationale. --Laser brain (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Wait, I take that back. I see that photo survived an image review at its FAC, with the reviewer noting that the image seems to meet WP:NFCI requirements under clause #8. If it is indeed the only known photo of that incarnation of the band and that's documented, I'd say it's historic and should stay. --Laser brain (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
#8 isn't the issue, #1 is. Nonfree content of a subject is not permitted if free content of it exists, even if the free content is not considered as good. The article is about "Pink Floyd", so if we have free media depicting Pink Floyd (as we clearly do), we cannot use nonfree, even if the nonfree is considered to be of higher quality. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, for anyone concerned about not showing Syd Barrett, it looks like we do have a free photo of him as well: File:Syd Barrett.jpg. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't, I think, about not having a photo of Barrett—which are ten apenny—but him being in the five-person line up; which are not. FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 18:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree, sorry. There is no free photos of the five of them, and I think it depicts a historic moment and is an important visual for the reader. If there is some better forum to get feedback on this, maybe we should get some other opinions. --Laser brain (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I beg to differ with the free image, Seraphimblade, I think it's suspicious because the flickr account its from has too many unrelated photos and they can't possibly be the original photographer.100cellsman (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg. Indeed it's a historical image of the five members. It passes both #1 and #8 of WP:NFCI. Coldcreation (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It's "cover art"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Cover art" applies to albums, not bands. The wrong question is being asked here. The article's subject is "Pink Floyd". If we have any free media available depicting Pink Floyd (which we do, the article's full of it), we must use that in preference to nonfree, even if the nonfree image is superior in quality. So the only question to ask is, "Do we have free media of Pink Floyd?" The answer is, yes, we do. There's no "opinion" there at all; that automatically causes it to fail NFCC #1. So, I'm sorry, but the image must go. That's a copyright issue, and so is not subject to opinion or consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to understand your above comment "#8 isn't the issue, #1 is." But I don't think the question is quite as straightforward as you make out, as the band's personnel, as with many bands, changed. It's not like a single person, where that question is much clearer. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The "band" is an aggregate. Many bands gain or lose members over the years; that's not uncommon at all. As long as an image show's a band's membership as it was at the point the photo was taken, that works, it need not show everyone who's ever been a member. If we could truly find no free media of Barrett at all, and couldn't convince anyone who had such a photo to freely release it, there might be a case for use of a single nonfree image of him alone in the section about him, though even then better that it just be in the article about him in particular. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
So, just for argument's sake, imagine a five-piece band where all five members are eventually replaced (not that unusual in some genres, I think). You're saying that a photo of the band in its first format is "the same", in terms of copyright, as one of the band in its final format? Even though none of the people in those two photos are the same? I'm surprised by that. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
...let alone a band with 66 different line ups...  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 15:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Personally quite happy to see that anything with Mark E. Smith's face on it gets speedily removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Afraid not. Now, I'm not married to that image, but when we have free images, we must every time use them in preference to a nonfree, even when the nonfree is of higher quality or otherwise better. That's exactly what both NFCC #1 and the exemption doctrine policy that allows it to exist state. We must use nonfree only when we have no alternatives, not just when they're better. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you've said that before. Thanks for clarifying with a link to NFCC #1. Too bad that deleting the free image is not an option. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is weak on its face, and you're neglecting the "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" part of #1 that weakens your argument further. I believe most of us are making the point that a historical image of the band with Barrett is serving a different, and essential encyclopedic purpose than an image of the band from other eras. Your argument that "Pink Floyd" as an entity can be depicted at any point in its history and serve an identical purpose is absurd. --Laser brain (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, change it back. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: There is no free equivalent photo of the original Pink Floyd lineup. Non-free content can be used in this case, since no free equivalent is available, or could be created (Syd Barrett is dead), that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. #1 is not the problem. Consensus needs to be restored in the decision making process. Coldcreation (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Restore. I think the image should be restored, even if discussion continues here or elsewhere on this topic, and/or on the more general principle. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not permitted to narrow the scope like that. Otherwise, one could say "Well, there's no free image that depicts the way Pink Floyd looked at 6:13 PM on 23 August 1972, so there's no free equivalent...". The subject of the article is "Pink Floyd", so the question for #1 is "Do we have any free images which depict Pink Floyd?". Not "Do we have any free images that depict Pink Floyd at X moment in time?". Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It's evident that you can't accept that others might not share your binary view of NFCC, and it's not as clear-cut as you believe it is. If you won't respect consensus here, we'll be compelled to seek additional feedback. I'd rather no go running to the teacher and say "Seraphimblade won't respect consensus" but you're not leaving us with a lot of options. --Laser brain (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
If we really need an RfC to ask if we have free images in the article, I'm alright with that. But copyright isn't a spot where consensus applies. We cannot use nonfree when free media is available just because it's higher quality or depicts a specific moment in time. That's also a local consensus issue; NFC and EDP represent a global consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we're just talking past each other at this point so I'm not going to persist further after this. We've argued that the image meets WP:NFCI #8, which was also part of the consensus at this article's FAC. That's part of the policy you keep citing, listed as an exception. You can disagree that #8 applies here, but you're not even mounting an argument other than to completely dismiss everyone's arguments citing the policy again. --Laser brain (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Then let me try rephrasing, because yes I have. The argument is that NFCC #1 applies to the article subject. If we allowed "drilling down" so that we're looking for a photo that captures a specific thing, moment in time, etc., in regards to the subject, NFCC #1 would become a dead letter, because it would always be possible to argue "no free replacement" by drilling deep enough. "Well, this doesn't show all the members who were ever in the band." "Well, this doesn't show how X looked at Y time." Clearly, the intent of NFCC #1 isn't to just require you to say "Oh, well there isn't free media that depicts exactly this", it's to exclude nonfree media when free media about a subject exists at all. I do believe I've stated that before, but you've not responded to it, except to say that's not the way it works. But it clearly is, because if it works the way you're proposing, there's no point having the rule at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not arguing #8 at all. I don't think it's purely decorative; that's not what's at issue. The issue is that free media exists that depicts "Pink Floyd" as they existed during most of the band's career and during the apex of that career. That is a perfectly adequate image. It may not be the best available one, but that's not the question when deciding whether nonfree media is replaceable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer the image from Meddle, if that image is free content. Floyd of the early 70s is much more significant than Floyd as a five piece band, which was just a short, non-productive blip in a time of disarray. Floyd of the early 70s was the Floyd that began to produce music on a truly global scale. Mark Froelich (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want a photo of Pink Floyd at the period when they were most famous and succesful...here's one :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: I see the image was changed again, but I'm starting to see your point about this being a slippery slope that could eventually lead to anything being rationalized. Where is the line? --Laser brain (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Very clear line... unique historic image.--Moxy (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain, the line, I think, would be when that particular image, in and of itself, is the subject of extensive commentary. If, for example, the band had been the first ever to be photographed doing a stage dive or a guitar smash, and the image of that "first of its kind" were heavily commented on and considered highly iconic, then we could justify using it (especially if the article also discussed the image itself to a reasonable extent) even if nonfree. That's what "historic" means. "Historic" does not mean, as Moxy seems to want to assert, just that it's old or depicts some facet that nothing else did. There will always be nonfree media that depicts some facet of something that free media does not; that's not the standard or, again, the rule becomes essentially a dead letter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the lead? Do you have an image that represents the text? Not sure we should take the advice of a young editor that is not a copyright expert. Perhaps best to get more people involved that are aware of our copyright as was done originally at the fa review. Simply don't trust that an unamed admin is right. last thing we want is an admin to get blocked over this.--Moxy (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Moxy: Diannaa is the most knowledgeable copyright editor on the project (in my opinion). (sorry if I pulled you into something :P ) - FlightTime (open channel) 19:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree....need to review the FA talk and the archive.....as this is the 3rd time a flyby editor has tried to change this. As of now we have an unlabeled image that you can't even see who's who. I have no strong position on this..... but do think a photo that matches the text is needed. lots of consideration goes into text and photos in FA articles. --Moxy (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Moxy, I'm flattered that you'd call me young, and I wish you were right. I'm afraid you're not though, in any sense. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005. As far as my knowledge of copyright, I'm not a copyright lawyer (and doubt you are either), but have dealt extensively with copyright law in relation to media and software, and on one occasion was asked by an actual lawyer about copyright law, as she normally did personal injury and needed a starting point to look up some copyright issues that came up during a case. She didn't just take my word for it of course, and checked to make sure I was right, but later told me that I was. So I might know just a thing or two on both copyright law in general, and about its interaction with media in general and Wikipedia in specific. In our case, however, our rules around use of nonfree content are much stricter than what the law itself would allow. As a nonprofit educational project, we'd have a pretty wide latitude for fair use (though not unlimited), but since we're a free content project, we've decided not to make as much use of that as we would be legally allowed to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This is all wonderful stuff and if you were identifiable and not some random editor/admin it might be credible, As of now your one random person that has the opposite view of the majority from the past years. Your editwaring based on your view of OUR community policy on a long stable image that been here because of a copyright discussion. Let me paint a picture for you - as someone who have never been involved in tlaks about the image - you have shownup changed the image and it was reverted...a talk started (BRD - this is great)...but not one person agreed with your view on community policy - including a fellow admin, yet you have then reverted 2 more times with the last edit summary basically threatening admin action if its replaced. So here we are ..as an old editor (I mean this in the context of edit experience not age) this is not what I want to see from our admins.....you must also respect our community processes or the whole thing will fall apart .--Moxy (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I was pinged here. My opinion is that Seraphimblade is correct: We cannot use a non-free image when there's a freely licensed image available. Please consider re-starting the discussion at WP:FFD, which is the suggested venue for discussions regarding the use of images. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Great to see you User:Diannaa ....I take it your aware that there is no free image of the 5 of them......as referenced in the lead .That said you do have the trust of the community on this stuff.....thus I would suggest we look for a new image that is recognizable.... before the FA review we had a collage.--Moxy (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
On Schutzstaffel we created a {{photomontage}} using six representative images. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Like the one at Led Zeppelin - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
That might not be a bad idea. Both of those are very good montages, though in the first instance about a rather unpleasant subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Restore Pink Floyd consisted of Barrett, Waters, Gilmour, Wright and Mason - no free equivalent of Barrett is available - there is only one photo session of them together - Barrett and Wright are dead - an image of "Pink Floyd" without Barrett would not be completely representative of the band as an entity - all of these factors make a case for fair use. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
All of the criteria at WP:NFCCP are met. The image had been removed from this article because of an unjustifiable interpretation of #1 (that any free image of the band would serve the same encyclopedic purpose). There is no free equivalent photo of the original Pink Floyd lineup. This historic image can be used in this case since no free equivalent is available or could be created (two members are dead), that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Syd Barrett was instrumental to the band, not just at its creation, but throughout the entire history of the band. This January 1968 image is from the only known photo-shoot of all five members, the only photo-shoot that includes Barrett and Gilmour. A montage does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Coldcreation (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to thank Diannaa for taking time to voice her opinion (even though it wasn't what I wanted to hear), that being said, if it is determined that a free image of Floyd with Barrett and Wright is not available, I still support using File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg for the infobox. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 13:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
While I don't necessarily agree with the outcome, I think it would be wise to defer to Seraphimblade and Diannaa at this point. File:Pink Floyd (1971).png is dreadful, but that's not really the point. --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I have listed the image at Files for Discussion. Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 18#File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
No need to defer; there are no free images of the band that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Coldcreation (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Album page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

Change "Released 30 November 1979: to "The 30th of November 1979" Mindersteve (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making the change and clarifying the sentence structure a bit. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The current form of "date information is the correct one according to WP:MOS. It was reverted to the correct form after my recent change to close the request, but I erred in application of MOS. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Do they really have nothing to do with space rock?

Even a cursory Google search returns tons of results about the band being some important early contributors to this genre. Even if they're not defined by it as a whole (and they even came to dislike the term), does that mean that it shouldn't be listed as a genre under their entry? Is this source good enough to attribute to (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame) https://www.rockhall.com/inductees/pink-floyd http://www.progarchives.com/subgenre.asp?style=15 https://www.loudersound.com/features/50-years-of-floyd-floyd-in-space https://www.last.fm/tag/space+rock/artists https://www.ranker.com/list/space-rock-bands-and-musicians/reference Do they have to be academic articles? Word dewd544 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Band pictures in albums

Hi. In the article for Meddle it states "The gatefold contains a group photograph of the band (Floyd's last until 1987's A Momentary Lapse of Reason"), with the latter album also citing this fact. Now this is where I might look a bit dumb (or comfortably dumb, if you prefer...), but doesn't The Dark Side of the Moon also contain a group shot of the band? No here's my downfall - I only have the CD of the album, not the (original) vinyl release. So at the risk of already answering my question, is the text on the other two articles correct? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No crazy diamonds around to help?! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm same as you mate, only got the CD. My father in law might have the vinyl, will have a look next time I'm there unless nobody can confirm in the meantime. Crowsus (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
There's no band photo on the DSOTM LP sleeve. ♟♙ (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope, no photo on the original sleeve, but the album did come with a poster which could be the source of the confusion. One of the six panels is a wide-angle stage shot, though it's hard to make the band out due to the coloured stage lighting and the distance the photo was taken from. (The other five panels are solo shots, some close-up and others artistically distorted / blurry.) You can see an image here. JezGrove (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Songkick

Template:Songkick is considered as spam, I'm not yet sure about this, but if the purpose is grabbing tour dates from WikiData or similar, then I don't expect Pink Floyd on tour anytime soon. Please remove this cruft from the #External links. Besides there are already five other WP:ELs, isn't that considered as the absolute maximum somewhere? –84.46.53.251 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Songkick includes past, as well as future tour dates. The template is not "considered as spam". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Quoting the TFD nominator: External WP:SPAMLINK: also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM. That you are protective about your template is as it should be, I'd also try this, but an edit summary rvv for what is no vandalism is on the wrong side of WP:IAR. Just count the template uses (I did), and then drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass if you can, there are more interesting WikiMedia battlefields than this template. –84.46.53.251 (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The TfD nominator has no special authority in this case. They are wrong. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2019

Hi there. As below, the Pink Floyd Wikipedia article currently lists no "current members" of Pink Floyd. However, the band's official, verified Facebook page states that David Gilmour and Nick Mason are current members of the band. Please see https://www.facebook.com/pg/pinkfloyd/about/

Given that is the official line from the band's own properties, would suggest that it is replicated on the Wikipedia page, with David Gilmour and Nick Mason to be listed as "current members".

Thanks! 77.100.23.107 (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Our article says that Pink Floyd is no longer active, which seems well-sourced (e.g. this article). Wikipedia style is that, for groups that are no longer active, all members should be listed as former members - see guidance at Template:Infobox_musical_artist TSP (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Pink Floyd for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Pink Floyd is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at this MfD discussion page until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 22:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Change Richard Wright's years as a member from "(1965-1979, 1987-1995, 2005; died 2008)" to "(1965-1979, 1993-1995, 2005; died 2008)" since Richard was on A Momentary Lapse of reason but wasn't technically a band member and recording for The Division Bell was when he officially became part of the band again which started in '93. Blaizeallen (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the only known photoshoots of all five members?

Under the article's infobox image reads "Pink Floyd in January 1968, one of the only known photoshoots of all five members.". That's not quite correct - it's not one of the only known photoshoots of all five members, it is the only known photoshoot of all five members. There are other images from that photoshoot, but there are no other photoshoots with Barrett, Gilmour, Waters, Wright and Mason together. I suggest this should be altered to ""Pink Floyd in January 1968, from the only known photoshoot of all five members.". What do you think? Humbledaisy (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and make the change. If someone thinks otherwise, they'll put it back. Popcornduff (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

Change "Another Brick In The Wall (1982)" in the introduction to "Another Brick In The Wall, Pt. 2 (1979)", because that is the correct title of the single and the year it came out. 2806:106E:20:A98:2D8D:8711:DBDB:3200 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Listed as Part 2 in the "Pink Floyd#The Wall (1979)" section as well as on the article for the single. NiciVampireHeart 19:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Categories

If there are sources that say Pink Floyd is an experimental rock band, it would not be correct to include Pink Floyd in that category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeinteAños17 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)‎

Remember A Day

Pink Floyd literature references Remember A Day as having been recorded during the Piper At The Gates of Dawn sessions. It's frequently cited as one of three songs on Saucerful of Secrets that includes Barrett on guitar. However the article mentions Norman Smith's complaints about Mason's drumming as though it took place during the SoS sessions. Not really sure what is correct anymore regarding this. ♟♙ (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2019

CHANGE "Pink Floyd were an English rock band formed in London in 1965.";

TO "Pink Floyd was an English rock band formed in London in 1965.";

Just replace 'subject "were" description' with 'subject "was" description. 14skowalczyk (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done - as clearly explained in the edit text -
"NOTE: UK bands by convention of British English here are described as WERE. Do not use WAS!" - Arjayay (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Pink Floyd being considered psychedelic rock or just psychedelic

Should Pink Floyd be considered psychedelic rock or just psychedelic? X-ma998 (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The article has sources for both psychedelic pop and psychedelic rock, so the more general term "psychedelic music" seems more appropriate for the genre box to me as it encompasses both. Do others disagree? Rodericksilly (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Psychedelic music is more general, less restrictive, covering a wide range of sounds created by the band; especially during their earlier periods. Since there are sources for both psychedelic pop and psychedelic rock it seems logical per WP policy to use Psychedelic music. Coldcreation (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It can not just be "psychedelic", as that could imply they are high or something. Maybe "psychedelic rock/pop" if both apply? Rock and pop often crossover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KasiaNL (talk • contribs) 08:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Restore the FA-reviewed genres There are too many genres in the current infobox. Template:Infobox musical artist#genre advises "Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop) and preferably use two to four." The FA reviewed version had two: progressive rock and psychedelic rock.[1] If one scours the internet, there are probably several mentions of proto-this, experimental-that, etc., buried somewhere in an album or concert review. However, the two in the FA version were probably chosen because they best describe the group's overall musical style. The infobox for The Beatles, who were more musically diverse than Floyd, lists two: rock and pop. Stuffing every possible genre into an infobox looks amateurish and not encyclopedic. Leave these for discussion in a "Musical style" section (or the existing "Genre" section), where they can be backed up with some context and have more meaning – what distinguishes their acid- from psychedelic- rock or their proto-prog from regular prog? – otherwise, it's just name dropping. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    Ojorojo, agreed. Popcornduff (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    I agree with Ojorojo too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ojorojo, the FA reviewed genres are backed by a consensus... Dartslilly (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I remember the "Genres" section of the infobox saying psychedelic rock, art rock, and progressive rock before the change. According to @Ojorojo, the "Genres" section should have just progressive rock and psychedelic rock. I agree with this as well. I hope more editors join in and discuss this. X-ma998 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Rock, psychedelia, progressive rock / Rock, psychedelia, progressive — They were primarily a rock band and secondarily a psychedelic or prog band. Virtually an equal number of sources refer to their early period as "psychedelic rock" or "psychedelic pop" so any preference over one or the other is editorial opinion. Currently, there isn't even a single instance in the article that calls them a psych-rock band (but there is one three for psych-pop!). ilil (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Discography

I had an album by Pink Floyd called "Relics". It either came just before or just after "Atom Heart Mother" - but before "Meddle". The album cover had the image of an ancient clay mask. I saw no reference to this album in the text or discography. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansascarguy (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on proposed creation of "Pink Floyd songs" navbox

Can there be a navbox entitled "Pink Floyd songs", which contains all of the Pink Floyd songs that have an article on Wikipedia? X-ma998 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@X-ma998: No such navbox exists. As it says at the top of this page,
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pink Floyd article.
Not far below that is a box headed
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects
which contains an entry titled
WikiProject Pink Floyd (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
To the right of that is a [show] link, click that, and the following text is revealed:
This Pink Floyd-related article is within the scope of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pink Floyd and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
What this means is that general matters concerning Pink Floyd are best discussed at WT:WikiProject Pink Floyd. Also, before using the {{rfc}} tag again, please try to observe WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Genre

I think we should include more genres than just progressive rock and psychedelic rock. Maybe art rock and experimental rock as well. These are all sourced. Bowling is life (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see why you’d want to do that, but their music isn’t always art rock. I think to be considered “art rock” there has to be some sort of concept to the album, and I don’t think any of their albums before Dark Side really had an overarching concept. As for experimental rock, that would definitely fit their earlier music, but after a while they weren’t experimental. However, they have almost always been progressive and psychedelic. Henoryry (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of 'Pink Floyd'?

I didn't read the entire article, and there might be an explanation, but is there one? Floyd is from the Welsh origin word 'Llwyd' meaning "gray". "Pink gray" doesn't make much sense, but that is sometimes how the color of brain tissue is described. Which could make sense from a psychedelic band perspective. This is an original research idea but wanted to check in case it's ever been mentioned before in sources. -- GreenC 23:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Syd Barrett had records by bluesmen Pink Anderson and Floyd Council. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Simple as that. :-) Graham Beards (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
My theory goes the way of the Yellow Brick Road. -- GreenC 00:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

new rants?

Hallo, nothing about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_x3penXBFU&feature ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.240.254 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Pink Floyd" or "The Pink Floyd"?

I often hear "the" immediately before "Pink Floyd", suggesting the name of the band is "The Pink Floyd" rather than "Pink Floyd". I also often hear "the Floyd", which I think supports to the notion that the band's name is "The Pink Floyd". Comments? John Link (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Floyd" is merely colloquial shorthand.
"The Pink Floyd" seems to be part of a 1960s - 1970s tendency -- especially in the UK -- to and "the" in many band names: "The Cream", "The Fleetwood Mac", etc.
Convenient shortcuts for this type of question include usage in reliable sources and the band's official site (if there is one). There's also authority control, which gives us "Pink Floyd" and "Fleetwood Mac" but "The Beatles" and "The Who". - SummerPhDv2.0 06:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
What's authority control? John Link (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's see... I used to have an encyclopedia article on that somewhere.... oh, here it is: authority control. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
For this specific group, they were initially 'The Pink Floyd' (actually I think the very first version was something like 'The Pink Floyd Experience' or 'The Pink Floyd Sound' (it might be in the article, I've not checked). The suffix was dropped very quickly and 'The' got ditched as they started to become famous in 1967 (again I've not confirmed, but IIRC the earliest singles were released as 'The Pink Floyd' but the first album was under 'Pink Floyd'). So it's not totally incorrect for them to be referred to as 'The Pink Floyd' but it should only be in that historical context. The official and common name is simply Pink Floyd. Crowsus (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Ok. The photo of Pink Floyd is incorrect in identifying the members. Roger Waters is identified as Syd Barrett and vice versa. 2601:285:500:4F80:2D90:48B0:55C2:7F5B (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The caption is correct as it is (clockwise from bottom Gilmour, Mason, Barrett, Waters, Wright => Gilmour on the bottom, top row left to right are Mason, Barrett, Waters, Wright). Fbergo (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

209.175.26.221 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that the third time they were active (2012-2014) should be 2011-2014 because that's when the "Why Pink Floyd...?" campaign started.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 22:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

Dark Side of the Moon is ALL BARRETT.

Roger Waters wrote about NONE of it.

DARK SIDE OF THE MOON anagram TOOK FROM SIDNE HEAD

Syd was pissed of that Waters changes the time signature of 'Money' from NINE to SEVEN beats.

If syd's anagrams are new to you:

See Emily Play See my lie play

Please baby lemonade apes all babel sayen mee dope

effervescing elepahts five apes sing feel her cnt

careful with that axe eugene waters fux lunatics g

she's so high on the air hits his shag no heroe

gigolo aunt u gloat i gone

in his agagrams, syd deals repeatedly with themes

sick of teaching donkey gilmour and clown waters waters got no hearing, gilmour cant get his timing

they are unworthy

female being violated (his muse, likely)

taking his music

syd's lyrics in many many of his songs,

are PURE ANAGRAMS.

Dark Side of the Moon is the most spectacular.

He chides them for being reluctant to 'study', and says:

"no hit for you.... you wont study"

You can have absolutly NO IDEA of Syd's work, until you see ALL the anagrams. 2001:8003:2EAE:3B01:E119:5299:C1F7:94DA (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sources must indicate that anagrams are intentional instead of coincidential. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 21:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

See Emily Play was entirely anagrams. I am yet to look at Arnoly Layne,but the title is not a good anagram.

there is no other day lets try it another way I try to train waters he hears thy yodel tone

youll lose your mind and play free games for may see emily play see my silly loony ape gilmour play money dreadfully fears me a 2001:8003:2EAE:3B01:E8A7:5A77:9DC7:BE89 (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

1995 interview in Mojo Magazine ...

There was a very interesting interview with Mason, Wright and Gilmour in the July 1995 edition of Mojo Magazine. An archived reference to this interview is used in the WP article "List of concerts in Hyde Park".

Since this article is protected ... maybe someone with proper access rights wants to use it here, as reference or as external link?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140425204523/http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/t1484-gilmour-mason-wright-30-year.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb05:27c:df00:9e15:78ff:fef2:7811 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add a hatnote to handle the incoming redirects The Tea Set and The T-Set

{{redirect-multi|2|The Tea Set|The T-Set|tea service|tea set|the Dutch band|Tee-Set|other uses|T Set}}

"The Tea Set" and "The T-Set" redirect here. For tea service, see tea set. For the Dutch band, see Tee-Set. For other uses, see T Set.

-- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

Please remove Delicate Sound of Thunder, as it is a live album, not a studio album. 2601:407:4100:87A0:C015:FD8D:BFF1:12B9 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: It being a live album is not cause for removal. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be consistent though. Why list one live album but not the other two? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Use of "were" in first two paragraphs

The first two paragraphs use the plural "were" instead of singular "was" to describe the actions of Pink Floyd as a group. This is wrong and is driving me crazy! Will someone please change it to "was," e.g., "Pink Floyd was an English rock band." Pappy&Spike (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an WP:ENGVAR issue. That's how those crazy Brits actually talk! Check out the Radiohead or the Rolling Stones articles (or any other British band) and they will use the same wording. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
He is right. If they were American we would say "Pink Floyd was". Bowling is life (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Just think of it as Pink Floyd being a group of people, rather than it's own singular entity. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
And (most) Americans would say the New York Dolls were, not the New York Dolls was, because it is more obviously a plural. The linguistics are explained here.
We are, of course, "Two nations divided by a common language" - Arjayay (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

File:Pink Floyd, 1971.jpg Change: Wright, Gilmour to Gilmour, Wright Miasic (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Done, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

Please change Waters's to Waters' 122.58.98.26 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

What does photo caption mean?

Caption on top photo says, "Pink Floyd in January 1968, from the only known photoshoot during the five months that all five members were together." What does this mean? These are not the original five members. Greg Dahlen (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

Syd Barrett did not reunite at the live 8 concert, it was roger waters 81.102.81.8 (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Correct, and that's what the article says: all but Barrett reunited for a one-off performance at the global awareness event Live 8. Favonian (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Dick Parry

Why is Dick Parry not listed as a Past member of Pink Floyd on the Pink Floyd page? 2600:1011:B122:E3EA:38C8:4701:4F5F:5AE9 (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@2600:1011:B122:E3EA:38C8:4701:4F5F:5AE9: Because he is only a session musician for the band, not an official member. Only official members are listed there. Bowling is life (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Misquote

Under Musicianship => Genres, the long quote from Pink Floyd and Philosophy has several obvious errors, as in, the versions written in the article currently don't even make sense."Album" should be "pablum", and "virtuoso" should be "should be serving up virtuoso licks". There's also some missing quote marks in the second part of the quote, and probably some other minor errors I didn't catch. 50.72.9.214 (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

2007 should be added to the "Years active" section

Pink Floyd was also active in 2007, live on stage. On 10 May 2007 Pink Floyd (David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Richard Wright) played live at The Barbican (London, UK), at the Syd Barrett Tribute Concert. A 7" vinyl single was released in 2020 for the Record Store Day, capturing the event. See all the details here: https://recordstoreday.com/SpecialRelease/12045 --137.82.108.34 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. All current members of Pink Floyd played, the video is on the Pink Floyd official Youtube channel captioned as a performance by Pink Floyd: [2], and Rolling Stone reports it as a Pink Floyd performance. Our page Pink_Floyd_live_performances#2007:_Syd_Barrett_tribute_concert claims the performance was by "the sans-Waters Pink Floyd (presented as Rick Wright, David Gilmour and Nick Mason)" - but in the video you can clearly hear them being announced as Pink Floyd. TSP (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Year of formation/Bob Klose

Multiple sources either list Pink Floyd starting in 1964 or 1965, and this seems to be due to the fact that Bob Klose joined as a member of The Tea Set in 1964 and some list him as a member. I believe this to be a Quarrymen situation, where one band became another. My question is, is there any reason why Klose should be mentioned as a member of Pink Floyd itself and not in passing as a member of The Tea Set much like members of the previous bands that preceded Pink Floyd like Sigma 6? He is rarely mentioned as a member and Pink Floyd’s own website makes no mention of him in their history section. https://www.pinkfloyd.com/history/biography.php Zvig47 (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is similar to the early Beatles members, whose contribute to the band's discography was practically zero and which at most took part in a few live shows when the band was still developing. Perhaps, he should be mentioned in the Personnel section but not in the main infobox. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 21:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Oddly, I was on the point of making the same post!
I can see a justification for starting the members list and timeline from 1963 when the predecessor bands started; or from late 1965 when it became Pink Floyd; but our current position (starting both in 1964, so including Klose but none of the other early members) seems an odd middle ground that I'd find hard to justify.
Klose did appear on material much later released under the Pink Floyd name (1965: Their First Recordings); but then, Anthology 1 was released under the Beatles name and includes Quarrymen recordings, that doesn't mean John Duff Lowe was ever in the Beatles. TSP (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I have made the appropriate changes. Zvig47 (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Use was not were throughout. Pink Floyd was a band, not were a band. The members were in the band, but the band itself is singular, not plural, therefore Pink Floyd was a band, not were a band. 2001:569:BE09:400:3827:87E4:1A90:7D23 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The article uses British English grammar and spelling for obvious reasons. The use of "were" is explained in American and British English grammatical differences#Subject-verb agreement. Favonian (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead info on 2022 reformation should specify lineup

It should be clarified in the lead that Gilmour and Mason reformed Pink Floyd, as opposed to a full reunion with Waters. I'm not a Waters loyalist or anything, but this new Floyd is essentially a Gilmour solo project (with help from Mason) in all but name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:710E:7E00:8DAC:F0B4:D36:D47 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Added - seems a reasonable request for clarity, given that the previous reunion mentioned (Live 8) is mentioned to have included Waters. TSP (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

1967 Enfield College poster

The Series 43 "Forty Hall - I" edition of BBC's Antiques Roadshow featured a poster for the 18 March 1967 gig at Enfield College. It was valued at between £8,000 and £12,000: [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Why past tense?

"Pink Floyd were an English rock band formed in London in 1965"?

Why is it "were" and not "are"? The band exists, they recorded new material in March 2022 and released it in April 2022. As long as both members are still alive, the band is on hiatus from which it can come back whenever they decide, as it was just proven. --137.82.108.34 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Simple, because nobody ever thought the band would reunite, multiple reliable sources have said it was impossible to reform without Richard Wright. This Guardian source says "Most observers assumed Pink Floyd were long defunct." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I have changed the infobox to show Gilmour and Mason as "current members". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Never say never, I guess. Pink Floyd never officially disbanded even after Wright died. They probably never will, as long as Gilmour and Mason are alive. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I think they pretty much did officially disband - see Gilmour's 2014 and 2015 statements ("It's a shame, but this is the end" and 'Pink Floyd are "done"'); but the new release obviously changes things. TSP (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it was reasonable to assume that Pink Floyd had disbanded with Wright's death. A single is one thing; a tour, playing songs that Wright was an integral composer of (anything up to Dark Side of the Moon, and bits afterwards) is quite another. The odds of them going off and playing "Astronomy Domine" are ... remote (though I dare say Mason would probably like to do so). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: He has, loadsa times... SN54129 13:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
There might have been studio sessions after 2008 to redo the drums for "A Momentary Lapse of Reason", the 2019 version with Mason actually playing the drums. On the live front, who knows. I wouldn't be surprised if they take the stage for some large funds collecting concert along the similar lines to the latest single. Prior to all this, I expected that David would show up for one of Nick's NMSOS shows (for "Astronomy Domine", or alike), which would technically be a reunion. Time will tell. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
What I meant is, they never legally disbanded. For example, The Beatles did this on 29 December 1974 (a process that involved lawyers, filed court paperwork, etc.), which meant that reunion was not possible at all after that moment. Pink Floyd never did this after 2014 (post-The Endless River), just media statements, so there is nothing preventing David and Nick to be Pink Floyd (in studio, or live on stage) if they simply decide to do so (as they just did). 137.82.108.34 (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
What a day! Tiger Woods, Baseball and Pink Floyd, me happy :) WP:NOTFORUM - FlightTime (open channel) 17:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure - which meant there wasn't a bar to them reforming, like there is with the Beatles. But the Beatles, as a band rather than a legal arrangement, broke up in 1970, not 1974; and plenty of other bands have broken up without, at least publicly, signing any legal papers. I don't think Wikipedia needs to wait on a legal settlement before describing a band in the past tense, when there are clear statements that they are no longer together as a band, as in this case. Of course, bands can reform, as they did in this case. TSP (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
There are also band activities public is not aware of, or becomes aware of only (long) after the fact. For example, when the redux issue of A Momentary Lapse of Reason came out in 2019, Andy Jackson stated in an interview that Nick Mason recorded his drum parts ten years prior, in 2009. David was there too of course, so there were Pink Floyd studio recording sessions in 2009, after Wright died (no doubt, because Wright redux parts were taken from old live recording, rather than being new studio takes; if he was alive at the time, he would've recorded them in a studio just like Mason). Furthermore, public had no idea about the studio work and new recording sessions for The Endless River, which were happening in 2012-2014, just like nobody knew about the new recording session in March 2022 for the current single. There is nothing we can do about that of course, but I do advise caution about pronouncing the state of things just based on media. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
How many comments before the page is updated? It appears to be locked for editing. 00sweeney (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Ephemeral events, one-off get-togethers, and the like, doesn't really change whether the band is "active" or not. Sustained periods of being a working band under the official name of Pink Floyd would work, but merely doing a few things in the same room together do not really count. I don't know how it applies directly to dealing with them based on the new Ukraine war inspired song, but trying to say "they were an active band in 2009 because a few of the guys met in a recording studio and laid down a few preliminary tracks" is a bridge too far. --Jayron32 17:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    Well put, totally agree. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    I disagree that redoing an album in a recording studio for a new release of it is not band activity. Of course it is. 137.82.108.34 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    Guys like Jayron--and they're ALWAYS guys--whose supposed "fandom" takes precedence over established consensus reality are one of the reasons I stopped donating to Wiki.
    "Well, my favorite members are no longer in the band, so obviously they're not a band."
    Seriously, who thinks like that anymore? 00sweeney (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
    What the fuck are you rambling about? --Jayron32 12:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Dude. They released a new single less than a week ago! What more evidence do you need! They’re back together, at least for the current moment. Whether or not that single was a one off or not, I don’t know. But to say that they’re inactive 4 days after releasing a new song is rediculous! Change “were” to “is”, that’s the only logical thing to do! Cboi Sandlin (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Dude.
Facts have never changed anyone's mind, Wikipedia editors included.
There are clearly too many people here with too much of an investment in their favorite band remaining dead to change their minds just because of a pesky single.
No, it doesn't make any sense to me, either. 00sweeney (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Opinions, opinions, opinions .... Wikipedia doesn't work off your personal opinion, it works of what is presented by multiple, independent reliable sources. So your opinions here are of no value to improve the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand what strawman 00sweeney is trying to build, but they'd be better off using the facts they speak of, instead of using indirect personal attacks. - Floydian τ ¢ 13:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Past or present tense?

Should the article show Pink Floyd as a current band (present tense, current members Gilmour and Mason) or a former band (past tense, former members only)? TSP (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Present tense We had this discussion earlier and I thought had come to a general agreement, but it's twice been reverted back, so I thought a formal RFC was worthwhile.
    Pink Floyd recorded and released a single this year; my view is that a band that can put out a single is unquestionably a current band. I don't think it makes sense to say they ceased to be a band immediately afterwards - bands don't only come into existence for the duration of a gig then break up until their next gig. Short of some evidence that Pink Floyd have ceased to exist in some more permanent sense than last time, I think the fact they were able to record a single and put it out as Pink Floyd means it makes most sense to refer to them as a current band. "It's Pink Floyd if it's me and Nick" - David Gilmour, April 2022. TSP (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Present, per TSP's well-stated reasoning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Are they current or were they just active this year? Gilmour has stated this single was a one-off event, so I'm not sure how we could state that they're current. That said (and this may be a North American language bias), the band existed, so Pink Floyd are a rock band, regardless of their activities. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia does distinguish between current and former bands - e.g. Foo Fighters is written in present tense, Nirvana in past tense. Template:Infobox musical artist specifies that 'active' groups should have people listed as 'Current members'; 'inactive' groups have all members listed as 'past members'. (Whereas for Pink Floyd I think there is a clear distinction, as indicated by the quote form Gilmour above: Gilmour and Mason are the current members, Waters is a former member.) TSP (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Present tense seems reasonable given recent activities. --Jayron32 13:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Jeez, these blessed hippies, will they never give up?? Present tense, as per JayJay RonRon. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Present tense, they won't probably release new albums and staff, but they exist as a band and could still take part in live events, special singles, etc. Being inactive as a band for extended periods does not mean they have disbanded. From what Gilmour said, Pink Floyd is kind of a shared project between Mason and himself and they could return to it, and put out something within that project, whenever they want. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 17:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Present tense - Per Gilmour's quote. Makes prefect sense, agree with proposer and all Present rationales. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Present tense makes sense as they have a current single. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Present tense They put out a new single and David Gilmour even said he might consider doing some live shows with Kyulyuv after the whole thing in Ukraine cools down, so it’s the only logical option Cboi Sandlin (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Madcap's Last Laugh (2007)

In the concert Mason, Wright and Gilmour performed "Arnold Layne" with Jon Carin and Andy Bell (Wright on vocals). The performance of "Bike" was a group performance by almost all artists of the evening, including Mason, Wright and Gilmour. --91.154.226.48 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Past or Present Tense? (Updated)

Should the article be listed in the past tense (former members only) or present tense (with most recent active members)? Zvig47 (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Past Tense It’s been nearly half a year since the release of Hey Hey Rise Up with no further announcement of any new material being released. All signs are pointing to that song being a one-off single, meaning that Pink Floyd should be in the past tense. When this question was asked before, it was unknown if more material was going to be released from the band. It’s quite clear now that there was only one intention from the band, and that was releasing a one-off single. After that, the band dissolved once again. Unless there is any further information of a future tour, album, or song, the band should be referred to in the past tense. Zvig47 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
    Did you seriously does vote on your own proposal? Daemonspudguy (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Present Tense Because it's still 2022 and the band has not been legally dissolved. See also King Crimson. Daemonspudguy (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

They have categorically stated that they have no plans for a full reunion and the single was a one time thing. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  • I've changed this back to present tense. The May 2022 discussion was a request for comments, properly announced on the appropriate forums, with 11 people taking part, and made a unanimous decision for present tense. If you want to change that, I'd suggest re-opening that RFC or starting a new one. I don't think it makes sense that a decision made by 11 editors through a properly-publicised process can then be reversed by two editors without announcement in the same forums. (And, in fact, even this discussion is now majority in favour of present tense, if I correctly interpret Floydian's view.) TSP (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

"from the only known photoshoot including all five members." This is wrong, there are other known photoshoots that have Waters, Gilmour, Barrett, Wright, and Mason in one picture. 50.205.203.232 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
But hang on, there's no source in the article for the claim that this is the only known photoshoot, either. I'm just going to go ahead and remove this claim for now. Popcornfud (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

Workboxplayer2000 (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


Change the photo of Barrett to file below in the band members section; it's a proper photograph of him.

200px

Not done. That image of Barrett is used under Wikipedia's non-free content criteria and would require an additional and valid fair use rationale creating before it could be considered for use in this article. Nthep (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request re: Band members

May I suggest changing Wright's first run of years to 1965–1981? Several other bands on their wiki pages have people who were only ever hired guns listed as official members, and Wright is listed as a full band member on the The Wall album sleeve, and was still publicly presented as one during this period, so to say he wasn't a member during The Wall time feels a little over-detailed to me. Aaw1989 (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

I have an edit suggestion for the first few words of this Wikipedia page. It says "Pink Floyd 'are' and English rock band...". I believe it should be "Pink Floyd 'is' and English rock band" since 'Pink Floyd' is the name of the band and since bands are collective nouns and collective nouns are recognized as singular nouns. So change the first 'are' to 'is'. 158.62.79.175 (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That is British English and is correct. Please review MOS:ENGVAR - FlightTime (open channel) 03:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd

1. Could we sort the members of Pink Floyd in chronological order? David Gilmour is listed in spot number two when he was the last one to join.

2. Could we add Roger Waters as a member in 2005 since they reunited for the one off show in 2005 at Live8? Msantram (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Richard Wright's years as full member and touring/session member

Wondering about the listing below of (1965–1979, 1987-2008) (touring/session member 1979–1981 and 1986–1990) for Richard Wright. I understand the one year overlap on 1979 but why the two year overlap on 1986 and 1987? Thanks!

  • Syd Barrett – lead and rhythm guitars, vocals (1965–1968) (died 2006)
  • David Gilmour – lead and rhythm guitars, vocals, bass, keyboards, synthesisers (1968–present)
  • Roger Waters – bass, vocals, rhythm guitar, synthesisers (1965–1985)
  • Richard Wright – keyboards, piano, organ, synthesisers, vocals (1965–1979, 1987-2008) (touring/session member 1979–1981 and 1986–1990) (died 2008)
  • Nick Mason – drums, percussion (1965–present)

JohnRussell (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the sources in Wright's own article, he didn't formally rejoin Pink Floyd as a full-time member until 1994, just before The Division Bell was released. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Live Aid charity concert

In the listing it says Live 8, but the concert was actually called “Live Aid” to help communities in Africa. 2A02:C7C:D64C:6500:D6D:F286:2CB2:3076 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it was called Live 8 or Live 8 concert, London. Live Aid was 20 years earlier - and Floyd didn't play that. - Arjayay (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Stars (British band)

How about including them in the Spinoffs list? They were a former member's band only four years after he last performed with Pink Floyd and they played at least one Pink Floyd song (Lucifer Sam) so as far as I can see they had as good credentials as Nick Mason's Saucerful of Secrets which are included in the Spinoffs section. Romomusicfan (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023

In the forth opening paragraph of the article, change Billboard 200 to Billboard 200. 2601:407:4181:4260:F88A:707:7814:FC21 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Why? M.Bitton (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 21:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2023

Change are to was at the beginning of the article as David Gilmour has stated the band will never continue YourLocalRyan (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@YourLocalRyan, is there a source? Toadette (let's chat together) 14:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, DG did confirm it to the NME... in 2015! *facepalm* the OP is a bit behind the times. SN54129 14:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
This was discussed at length in April/May 2022 see Talk:Pink_Floyd/Archive_12#Why_past_tense? and Talk:Pink_Floyd/Archive_12#Past or present tense? and again in October 2022 see Talk:Pink_Floyd/Archive_12#Past or Present Tense? (Updated). These discussions were shortly after the March 2022 release of "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" which was issued under the name Pink Floyd.
Personally I would agree with the past tense, but it would have to be "were", not "was", as per the hidden note in the lead. - Arjayay (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Definitely not an uncontroversial change, almost certainly requires a new RFC. PianoDan (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

The first line should read Pink Floyd IS, not Pink Floyd ARE. Maximum757 (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done:. @Maximum757: This article is written in British English because Pink Floyd are a British band. "Pink Floyd are an English rock band" is correct. For American and Canadian bands, we would say "[insert band name here] is an American rock band". Different types of English treat bands/groups differently. Bowling is life (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Dates active

(This is referred to in the section above, but in my view is a separate issue - or should be - so I'm creating a new section for it.)

Dates active have recently been changed from a format of broad ranges during which band members took part in all band activities, e.g. (1967–present), to ones highlighting each individual occasion the band has been actively recording or gigging, e.g. (1967–1994, 2005, 2007, 2013-2014, 2022).

Thoughts? To me, this is far less helpful to the reader - the dates the band was active are already listed in the infobox, so there is no new information in laboriously repeating them for every band member, and it makes it pretty much impossible at a glance to see the difference between, say, Gilmour (active in all Pink Floyd activities since 1967) and Wright (left the band from 1981-1987, died in 2008). (I'm also not sure it's really accurate - if you were going to mark out periods when no-one was performing as Pink Floyd, what about the periods between 1983-7 when they stopped touring, Gilmour was still planning for Momentary Lapse of Reason to be his solo album and no-one even agreed who owned the name?)

To me, the proposed format is unreadable, and verging on breaching Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. TSP (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that showing dates that show the intersection of band membership and when the band was actively performing is less readable and less informative. If you wish to see when the band was actively performing, that's available under "Years active." If you want to see who was a member of the band throughout its history, you look to the "Band members" section.
I would also point out that the current revision is inaccurate with regard to Roger Waters. Waters was not a member of the band in 2005. He was invited to perform as a guest with the band, but was not invited to rejoin the band. "We made suggestions and Roger made suggestions, and I didn’t care for Roger’s suggestions. In the end, I thought, Actually, we’re Pink Floyd and he’s our guest, and he can just do what we tell him to do or fuck off." [David Gilmour reflecting on the Live8 performance, May 2021] The membership of Pink Floyd is something that's clearly defined and was even tested in a court of law based on legal action initiated by Waters. Davidwbaker (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
@TSP: Changing it to 1967–present implies that the member has been active in the band that entire time which is not accurate. The current years active reflect the band member timeline at: List of Pink Floyd band members timeline. Changing this is pointless and will lead to inconsistencies. Every other article for a band that has reunions lists the year the band reformed in the band members section. Maybe we could change it to 1967–2022, not present because it actually says in the Pink Floyd article: "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" was a "one-off for charity" and that Pink Floyd had no plans to reform." Adding a note next to 1967-2022 would be a nice compromise as it would clean the section up and the detail would only be revealed if you click on the note. It's hard to explain what I mean by adding a note so I'll provide an example. I know this example probably makes no sense in this discussion but I can't think of how else to describe it. See how the note organizes the mess in the genre section of this article. Something like this could be a nice compromise to resolve this dispute. Along with this, we should address the inaccuracies mentioned in this discussion. Bowling is life (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
"Changing it to 1967–present implies that the member has been active in the band that entire time" - no, it doesn't. It states that person has been a member of the band that entire time. To look at another example, Pink Floyd didn't record or perform between 1983 and 1985, but that didn't mean all the members left - then in 1985 Waters did leave. Following your model, his leaving was meaningless, because there was no band to leave.
Right now, there is a clear difference between the status of Gilmour and Mason, and the status of Waters - as Gilmour says, "it's Pink Floyd if it's me and Nick". Listing their membership doesn't imply they are actively making music as Pink Floyd, but there is a clear position, both legally and in published statements from the band, about who is currently in the band and who is not.
1967-2022 is at least more concise, but I'm not sure it's much better for accuracy - Gilmour was much clearer that the band had broken up permanently before 2022 than he has been since. Nevertheless when they decided to record again, it was very clear who was a member and who was not.
(I find it hard to have any strong feeling about Waters in 2005, in honesty. I think legally it was clear - Waters was not a member, the court case established that, just as Wright wasn't a member when playing on A Momentary Lapse of Reason and the following tour, even though the band was billed as "Pink Floyd" not "Pink Floyd and Richard Wright" - but I don't have a massive problem with him being listed as one given that was the popular perception and it's very notable that he rejoined the band on stage for that performance.) TSP (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
On further thinking about this, we could do something like
Roger Waters – bass, vocals, rhythm guitar, synthesisers (1965–1985, 2005 (guest)) ?
Thoughts?
However, this has now got me thinking about how best to represent Wright's line. He left as a member some time during the Wall sessions (do we actually know when? The lead says 1981 but it was clearly earlier given the need to rehire him for the tour); was hired as a session player for the tour from 1980-81; but, as I understand it, was not contractually a member any time after his initial departure - it's mentioned as a source of tension in our The Division Bell article. He was listed as a session musician on the cover of A Momentary Lapse of Reason (which even includes a band photo of just Gilmour and Mason), but as a member on The Division Bell. We probably need some kind of note on Wright's membership too, even if just a footnote - however, I'll leave it until we've addressed the more general question, lest we end up with dozens of versions of this section. TSP (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
As you suggest, listing Waters's inclusion as a "guest" in 2005 would seem clear and accurate to me.
I agree with you that Wright's listing needs some work. Wright was fired from the band (very regrettably, IMO) prior to 1981. I think it was in 1979. If Waters was a "guest" in 2005, it would follow that Wright should be listed as a "session musician" from 1980-1993, as he was formally reinstated within the band in 1994. Davidwbaker (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
"Wright was fired from the band (very regrettably, IMO) prior to 1981. I think it was in 1979." - Wikipedia doesn't work on what "you think", it works on what is verifiable to reliable sources. Povey 2007 p. 232 says "November 1979". Blake 2008 doesn't say directly but it suggests between August 1979 and when The Wall was released. Anyway, the bottom line is if you don't know things like this, which should be concretely referenced in a featured article, you'll just get challenged by people who do have the source material. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
My apologies for the casual language on the talk page, and thanks for your guidance.
When I said "I think," I meant that I wasn't looking at the reliable source to reference at the moment, and the substance of my comment was to point out that 1981 was an incorrect date.
The existing article uses Simmons, Sylvie (December 1999). "Pink Floyd: The Making of The Wall". Mojo Magazine. 73.
In addition, there is Mason, Nick (2004). There Is No Dark Side Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd (New ed.). Widenfeld & Nicolson. p. 246. ISBN 0-297-84387-7, which says "Rick acquiesced" to the demand that he leave the band, with a timing of just prior to when The Wall was being mixed in August of 1979.
In your judgment, is that sufficient clarity to modify the date for Wright from 1965–1981 to 1965–1979?
As far as "1980-1993," Mason p. 246 describes Wright as a "salaried performer" with the band. Is that sufficiently concrete, or would it be helpful for me to find additional sources? Davidwbaker (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I think there are a few separate periods there, and a fair bit of fuzziness!
  • 1965-79: unambiguously a full member of the band
  • 1980-81: salaried touring musician for the Final Cut tour (the only member/ex-member to make money from the tour!)
  • 1982-5: I think it's reasonably clear that he had no involvement? His touring contract was only 80-81, he doesn't appear on the Final Cut and Gilmour had to persuade him back for Momentary Lapse.
  • 1986-90: paid session musician for the Momentary Lapse of Reason recording and tours (he's not in the band photo in Momentary Lapse, and his name appears in the same size font as Bob Ezrin, not the larger font of Gilmour and Mason)
  • 1991-93: nothing? Our article notes that he was paid a weekly fee of $11,000 to do Momentary Lapse - was that just for the recording period? The recording and tour? Unlike a band member, I think a session musician's involvement does end when the tour or album ends, even if they are then re-engaged for the next.
  • 1993-2008: band member (contractually, still not, as noted in our The Division Bell article; but he is listed as a member in the Division Bell album sleeve, and the distinction seems to disappear from public view at this point? Similarly, in the 2007 Arnold Layne video, we hear them introduced as 'Dave and Nick and Rick - Pink Floyd'). Because this was a presentational change, not a legal one, it's hard to put an exact date on it.
So: (1965-79, 1980-81 (session), 1986-90 (session), 1993-2008)?
Probably still needs a footnote, at least noting that from 1993 he was still contractually not a member, but was presented as one.
This is part of why I don't want the current confusion of listing every separate performance - because the situation is already confusing enough without that! TSP (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
...even more complicated, I'd forgotten Delicate Sound of Thunder, released in 1988, which listed Wright as a member!
It seems like Floyd had very little idea post-1985 who their own members were.... (or, more accurately, the legal situation and the public one didn't match). TSP (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Mason's book (p 289) gives some indication of the complexities at play. In regards to initiating work on what would become MLoR, he writes:
"Rick joined the proceedings quite late in the day and was quarantined from any costs or legal repercussions from Roger. This was mainly a practical matter. There was some confusion over Rick's position within the band. When David and I first wanted to talk to Rick we discovered that buried in his leaving agreement from 1981 was a clause that prevented him rejoining the group. Consequently we had to be careful about what constituted being a member of the band; only David and I appeared on the cover of the album."
Summing the sources mentioned here, Wright accepted expulsion in 1979, worked as a salaried performer on The Wall live performances, and signed some sort of severance agreement in 1981 that complicated his return to full member on MLoR. In 1988, he's credited as a member of the band. Per Blake (pp 354-355), during the production of Division Bell, "Despite his involvement, Wright was still not contractually a full member of the band; something that clearly rankled." So, while the published music credits him as a member of the band from 1988 onward, in some legal sense he was not a "full" member, which could be that he did not achieve full financial or group governance standing. Davidwbaker (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Were vs Are

The band hasn’t released any new material since April of 2022, and they’ve made no indication that they are still together and intend to release more music. This question was asked about a year ago when it was still somewhat unclear if Hey Hey Rise Up was a one-off single or the first of many, but a year and a half later I think it’s clear the single was a one time thing, and not an indication of a continuation of the band. The consensus in mid 2022 was to keep the header as “Pink Floyd are an English band”, but now as we’re entering 2024 with still no music from them, I think it’s wise to change the header to “Pink Floyd were an English band”. I mean how long are we going to keep the header in the present tense if we don’t change it now, even in late 2024, there are still people saying that Pink Floyd is an active band. Zvig47 (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Present tense.
Since the last RfC (which @TSP noted was "properly announced on the appropriate forums"), Pink Floyd has released:
  • a physical version of "Hey, Hey, Rise Up" that included a new version of "A Great Day For Freedom" (June 2022)
  • a new remix of an album, Animals: Deluxe Addition. It took years to complete that project, in part, because of disagreements between current and past band members. (September 2022)
  • a Dark Side of the Moon 50th Anniversary set, which included previously unreleased material and involved planetarium shows around the world (September 2023)
  • various social media contributions
If the concern is that readers might be confused about the band actively touring or that there is evidence that they are producing new music at the moment, the "Years active" section of the infobox should be sufficient to accurately inform the reader.
Otherwise, I agree with the previous RfC discussion that bands don't only exist when they're actively touring and then break up. Pink Floyd is an ongoing concern that has released new material recently, and may release new material in the future. Until there's a evidence of a permanent dissolution of the band, the present tense should remain.
In fact, it's more accurate and informative for the article to distinguish between the current members, Gilmour and Mason, and the past members, Barrett, Waters, and Wright.
“It’s Pink Floyd if it’s me and Nick." —David Gilmour, April 2022
@Zvig47, 13 months ago you opened a discussion on this very topic. The consensus was to disagree with you and you were asked that if you wanted to change that consensus, you should either reopen the RfC or properly create a new one. Rather than do that, you've taken to editing the page directly. That's not a constructive path forward. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
A deluxe version and remix version of an album is not new material. Thats like saying The Jimi Hendrix Experience is still an active band because a 50th anniversary version of Electric Ladyland came out. Pink Floyd has been radio silent regarding new releases since 2022. If they announce new music then we will say they are active again, but as it stands, they’ve been inactive for a year and a half, the band is no longer active. Zvig47 (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with your edit to the Band Members section, for two reasons:
1. Roger Waters has not been a member of the band since 1985. His guest appearance with the band at Live8 did not make him part of the band. "We made suggestions and Roger made suggestions, and I didn’t care for Roger’s suggestions. In the end, I thought, Actually, we’re Pink Floyd and he’s our guest, and he can just do what we tell him to do or fuck off." David Gilmour, May 2021
2. The members of the band remain members of the band, even when they are not actively touring or producing music.
3. It adds no helpful information to a reader. If a reader wants to understand when the band has been active, it's in the info box.
I've added the disputed tag, rather than reverting your repeated addition to the article. Davidwbaker (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I see that you've gone ahead and proceeded with your change, despite the conclusion of the previous RfC and request that you proceed with the change only after a new consensus with a new RfC.
I don't think your editing strategy is constructive, but rather than reverting, I put a disputed tag on the article and directed discussion here. Davidwbaker (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
1. The band reformed with Roger in 2005, even though it was for one night only, he did rejoin for that one night. It wasn’t just billed as a performance by members of Pink Floyd, it was billed as a Pink Floyd performance. In most cases even for just reunion concerts, members who previously left but participated in said reunion concerts are listed as having rejoined the band, even for a short period of time.
2. They do not remain members of the band if there is no band. From 94 to 05, there was no Pink Floyd. Having the specific years when the band was active and when the members were in the band is the most informative way of writing this. Plus it fits with the timeline that is displayed on the page as well.
3. It does help by being as informative as possible. Nick Mason was on every PF release, but he wasn’t doing anything in the band between the years of 2007 and 2012, or 2014 and 2022, save for maybe interviews and deluxe material. Point is it is the most descriptive way of listing the years the members were members.
Once again I have to add, the band has essentially ceased all operations. There are still deluxe and remix releases for albums, but the last new piece of material was in 2022, and before that was 2014, and before that was 1994, if they are active, then they are the most inactive active band out there. A one off single back in 2022 at the time raised the question if they had truly reformed, but after more than a year and a half of no further announcements, it’s clear it was a one time thing. If not now, when do we finally list them as inactive, because as it stands right now there is nothing alluding to further NEWLY RECORDED (not deluxes or remixes) material. Zvig47 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Is Guy Pratt considered an official member? Plorangereal (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
At this point, with David Gilmour still producing great music, and Nick Mason doing some great jams with his wonderful spacey jam band, and Roger Waters keeping his rhythm going, as well, that as long as these great musicians are putting out that Floyd heartbeat, would you really lose sleep if we all said "Are"? This time is short. I find it enlightening when I think about it, that we still can say "are" about the Pink Floyd. Richard Wright lives on because of this. Even if you were to demand "were" it's still "are" to many of us, on principal!
It really isnt like calling the earth flat. Let it go. We've got this brother... 174.233.16.142 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Buddy that’s not at all how that works. You can’t just use the present tense because you feel like it. Like what even are you saying with “Even if you were to demand "were" it's still "are" to many of us, on principal!”? I love the band, but I’m not going to use the present tense just because I love them, it doesn’t work like that. If the members are active separately and doing their own thing, that doesn’t equate to their band being active. Others disagree with me in this discussion and I’m fine with that, but at least I understood their argument. Zvig47 (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I find that I can simply quote myself from a year ago, because the situation is identical:

"The May 2022 discussion was a request for comments, properly announced on the appropriate forums, with 11 people taking part, and made a unanimous decision for present tense. If you want to change that, I'd suggest re-opening that RFC or starting a new one. I don't think it makes sense that a decision made by 11 editors through a properly-publicised process can then be reversed by two editors without announcement in the same forums. (And, in fact, even this discussion is now majority in favour of present tense, if I correctly interpret Floydian's view.) TSP (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)"

Nothing has changed. A decision was made through a properly-advertised RFC, unanimously, with 11 editors. You tried to change it unilaterally a year ago without an RFC, and most people who commented disagreed with you. It can't be reasonable to say that people who disagree with you have to go through weeks of effort holding an RFC, then you can change it to your preferred version with no consensus whenever you feel like it and we have to keep holding more RFCs to be allowed to disagree with you. And once again, you are now in a minority even in this discussion section.

Please leave it at the version established by RFC consensus, or hold another RFC to change it. TSP (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I've restored present tense per WP:CONSENSUS and particularly WP:CCC - "in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion". I don't see any new consensus here to overturn the previous well-established one.
For what it's worth: Present tense. TSP (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
@TSP: In the "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" and conflicts section of this article it says: "Hey, Hey, Rise Up!" was a "one-off for charity" and that Pink Floyd had no plans to reform." And this is supported by a source. David Gilmour said this himself. The lead and infobox should reflect this. The article itself says they are not active and that song was just a one-off. So this shouldn't even be a discussion. I suggest changing it to past tense until they release anything else. If they announce a true reunion later on, then we can change it to present tense. Leaving the article in present tense right now is assuming they are active and will release new material in the future when a band member himself said this isn't happening. Bowling is life (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, having read the source, I think that part of our article is somewhat putting words into Gilmour's mouth. The relevant section seems to be:
Are you considering more Pink Floyd music? How did this fit into the rest of the music you’re working on? This is a one-off for Pink Floyd. I’m casually working away all the time. I’m hoping to get an album finished at some point, but my focus at this very moment is just on this.
Linking his statement on whether this release is a one-off to whether the band is "reforming" is inference on the part of the editor. The band existing is different to the band actively putting out music; compare to the hiatus after 1983 ("they had had several hiatuses before", our article says).
He also says, talking about the band in the present tense:
"It just struck me that here we are, with our name [Pink Floyd] and this platform, and we could use it more."
And, as has been quoted elsewhere,
“It’s Pink Floyd if it’s me and Nick."
My view is that the band still has a present-tense concept of itself; it has a clearly-defined membership; and it is capable of releasing new music; therefore it is a band that currently exists, just like it did in 1985, even if there are no specific plans to record or tour. TSP (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Dispute tags

Broken out into a separate section to make it easier to find, because it's not in the main flow of the conversation above TSP (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this matter, * but I will say that putting gigantic orange tags on what's supposed to be a featured article makes Wikipedia look amateurish and a bit of a laughing stock. I could understand if this was a major point of contention about the proportion of contributions Waters and Gilmour gave to the band, or how much due weight the article should spend covering all of the group's history. But it's trivial spat over a minor wording issue. Parkinson's bicycle shed comes to mind. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

* While I have expressed views on this before, I am bored of the subject now, have said everything I want to, and would rather look at more interesting things such as just what exactly is my favourite live version of "Careful With That Axe, Eugene". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I don't think there is any significant accuracy dispute here. The question is basically just one of interpretation - exactly what does "active" mean for a band? We don't need an article tag every time there is a talk page discussion. TSP (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm digging the Pompeii version this evening. The deepest version. 174.233.16.142 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the dispute tags, per this conversation. As I said in my edit summary, it's not really accurate to say "The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed." The facts aren't at issue, the dispute is one of definitions - what constitutes "active" for a rock band? - and it's not helpful to casual readers to suggest the article might contain significant factual errors. TSP (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Noble and Metcalfe left in 63 or 64?

In Preceding the band we have: "In 1964, as Metcalfe and Noble left to form their own band..." and "Noble and Metcalfe left the Tea Set in late 1963...". Both statements are cited to the same source - Mark Blake's Comfortably Numb. One of the statements is likely to be a typing error. SilkTork (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Blake, page 41: "The arrival of guitarist Bob Klose [...] in the summer of 1964 proved timely. [...] His arrival prompted Clive Metcalfe and Keith Noble to return to working as a duo." Noble and Metcalfe are not mentioned on pages 42-44. (ISBN 978 0306 81752 6) Mark in wiki (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I've gone with Nick Mason who says Sept 1963. SilkTork (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Another date issue. Our article, citing Povey, says: " Syd Barrett, two years younger than the rest of the band, who had moved to London in 1962 to study at the Camberwell College of Arts." But Barrett was studying in Cambridge at that time, and didn't moved to London and enrol until 1964. SilkTork (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Povey says 1964. I think there was a misreading of the source, because Barrett started studying in Cambridge in 1962. SilkTork (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_Floyd/Archive_12&oldid=1257972781"