Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Roger Waters

I recently reverted an edit that added Roger Waters as a member of Pink Floyd from 2005-present. I looked up information that supported this and found this. I'm not entirely familiar with Pink Floyd so I'm not sure if this means he is a member of the band once more or whether the new date should be mentioned. I'll leave that to others more familiar with the topic to decide. Cowman109^Talk 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite the way that media outlet (and many others) phrased the Live 8 appearance, it's very clear on the official Pink Floyd and Roger Waters webpages that Roger appeared with Floyd as a guest at Live 8, and did not officially rejoin the band. - dharmabum 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I really think that he should be listed under current members. He has been saying that he wants to tour again as the Floyd but can't because David doesn't want to. If there was a Pink Floyd tour, he would be in it, so how is he not a member? If nobody has any good rebuttles for this I will be adding him back. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Look back through the talk page archives for more details. The only people who can mount a Floyd tour are Gilmour, Wright, and Mason, as they constitute "Pink Floyd" as a legal entity. They could tour without Waters if they wished. Look at the official Floyd websites - it's 100% clear that Waters is not a member. - dharmabum 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo??? =

What happened to that great photo with all five Floyd members, including Gilmour and Barrett?

It was, once again, deleted for obscure copyright concerns. This time, it was because someone asserted it was a non fair-use magazine photo, which it wasn't; it was a promotional photo widely distributed in the 60's which was downloaded from a magazine's site. No matter the source or information provided about any given band photo it always seems to get deleted eventually. - dharmabum 04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any other pictures from that very short era of the band--I know that they must be obscure, but there must be one out there.

Yes,that's utter nonsense,any fan of Pink Floyd knows that photo is not copyright;and its the only one with all 5 members apart from other 2 photos thats being used by all.We want it back here.---asydwaters 13:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank whoever put back the old photo, it's really much better. I'm not registered so I'm not going to sign.

Popular Ref. to Pink Floyd

Pink Floyd,the name of the band,titles of the songs,names of the albums and band members have been featured in many popular culture media. '''MAD magazine''':The Super Special Issue #106 part of sub subseries title "Collector's Series No. #11" U.S. edition printed in August 1995 featured the "'''The Wall'''" cover of white bricks with black outlines on its "Contents" page.The phrase "All in all ,Its just Another schtick on The Wall" appeared in bold type in between the list of table of contents.There are many instances where the Pink Floyd have been used as in-joke by the artists and writers of Mad magazine.--asydwaters 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Omissions and Repetition

The section on the Gilmour led band has lots of duplication/repetition. It needs editing. -- Beardo 09:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some specifics? - dharmabum 08:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Gilmour led bands????I know only of Joker's Wild and Pink Floyd that David Gilmour has lead.---asydwaters 13:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

He means that he feels that the section on Pink Floyd in the 1985-present has a lot of duplication/repetition. I haven't gone over it in depth in awhile, I'd just like to know what Beardo had a problem with so I could look at the section with some focus. - dharmabum 10:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've finally found this discussion page (sorry, it's my first "contribution"), I'll repeat what I wrote on dharmabum's talk page earlier:

I corrected your introduction of "Embryo". As I mention in the article, it was actually released in 1970 on a relatively obscure VA double album (which I wish that I had today!) Due to the resulting length of the "Embryo" discussion, I found it necessary to restructure the opening sentences of the 1983 paragraph. Hope it's okay. I'm not a native English speaker. --leifbk 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

An important compilation is missing from the discography, though it was released only in some european countries; I guess it is worth mentioning: it was named "best of Pink Floyd" or "Masters of Rock". Some info here BOPF. It was released in 1973, I had it on a cassette release 24 years ago; it contained the early singles, and actually it gave me the chance to listen to "Candy and a currant bun" and "Apple and oranges", that are not included on Relics.--Doktor Who 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I remember Masters of Rock; I got a tape-traded copy in the late 80s, the first time I heard most of the singles. Since it doesn't include any previously-unreleased material it probably doesn't really warrant a mention in the main body of the article, but I'll add it to Pink Floyd discography. - dharmabum 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad; Masters of Rock already appears in Pink Floyd discography. As I said above, the lack of previously-unreleased material doesn't really warrant main-body inclusion, and the brief discography in the article only includes major studio releases, not compilations or live albums. - dharmabum 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, you are right, it is mentioned in Pink Floyd discography, though I could not see the cover. Actually, it would not be appropriate to put it in the infobox/template of PF albums.--Doktor Who 07:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Publius Enigma

Is it worthwhile adding information concerning the Publius Enigma phenomenon? See http://folk.uio.no/ericsp/ for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draven5 (talk • contribs)

There's already an article covering it, titled Publius Enigma. -- Longhair 10:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and with the same link too.--asydwaters 06:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Album Cover Artworks?

Where is the in-lenght topic that was unusually bright and good on The Album Cover Artworks on Pink Floyd.Earlier it was under the section "Images OF Pink Floyd".?---asydwaters 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

why did somebody delete the "trivia" section????

????????

There's a Pink Floyd trivia article on Wiki, but this looks like an endangered species ... it has a "considered for deletion" tag.Grimhim 05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh!I see it now;why do they want to delete something so important that it can be found on many Pink Floyd Fan Sites???--asydwaters 13:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Go and vote to keep, everyone. -- Beardo 04:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia on "Hey You" in The Wall (film)

Someone keeps adding a totally irrelevant piece of trivia about a deleted scene of "Hey You" into the article. The trivia is already in Pink Floyd The Wall (film), contains an unneeded critique of the video and audio quality of the deleted scene - not to mention it's a grammatical mess. I don't want to violate WP:3RR and the change keeps coming from different IPs. Am I the only one who thinks the article is already bloated enough without such a minor bit of trivia? - dharmabum 05:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right about "What shall we do now",Dharma.In fact its a trivial matter that the song was not included in the album but was included in the movie and the Live in Berlin concert.--asydwaters 06:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's the FA tag?

The one that should say "Pink Floyd Perfect Dark is a featured article, which means that it (or a previous version) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." I was wanting to see the nomination page to see if the issue of fair use of all those song samples came up and how it was dealt with.--SeizureDog 19:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed it to tidy up the top of the page, since it's clear it was an FA when it's been a main page FA, but hadn't thought that people might want to look back at the nom. I replaced it. - dharmabum 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm surprised it was the nomination that ended up giving this article so many audio clips. I had assumed that copyright hounds would have been against its use but I was wrong. This is good though, as I have a better understand on how audio clips will be recieved in articles. --SeizureDog 17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

I've said this in the Dark Side of the Moon article ad I'll say it here. Can we please use Commonwealth (British) spelling in the article? Call me a fuddy duddy, but this is a UK band. Even though I'm British, I'm considerate enough to use American spelling when editing American-centric articles. hedpeguyuk 11:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The article does use UK spelling (and grammatical rules, such as treating the band name as a plural pronoun), and there's a comment at the top of the article mentioning it, but obviously errors get missed. It just appears you were the first to notice the "-ized"s all through the article. - dharmabum 21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually "ize" is as much an acceptable British spelling as it is American according to my schooling over 30 years ago, which is probably why it has lain "overlooked" for so long. Cain Mosni 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure one way or another; as a Canadian we have a tendency to use a bit of both. - dharmabum 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK then, my apologees, according to the American/British spelling differences, "American spelling accepts only organize, recognize, and realize. British usage accepts both the older -ize form and the frenchified -ise form (organise, recognise, realise). However, the -ize spelling is rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, which is why it is often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism". I was always taught not to use -ize as it WAS an Americanism, that's schools for you. I was a bit grumpy when I wrote this as I'd just had an argument with one American who thought that the FIFA world cup article should have US spelling just because the US entered the first tournament and no British nation did. Rather daft reasoning, he lost the argument. I'll make sure I'll do my research next time although I still think that -ise should be used as it's the most used form in UK English. hedpeguyuk 08:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't suppose anyone's going to complain. They're both correct from my UK-centric point of view. I was just pointing out why it had gone unnoticed. Hope you're feeling less grumpy today. Cain Mosni 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Now in California?

Their Myspace page gives their location as "Whittier, California". Did they relocate there? Perhaps there should be a little explanation on their Wikipedia page. 67.166.144.32 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike the Dave Gilmour Myspace page (which is operated by Gilmour's label, Columbia), the "pinkfloyd" account is clearly an account created by a fan, probably one that lives in California. It's not a reputable source, and there's no need to mention it in the article. All of the band members live in the UK AFAIK, although all of them (save Syd) lived in continental Europe some time back and may still maintain homes there. - dharmabum 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Roger's main home is in the Hamptons district of New York State, but he does have large houses in Cambridgeshire and London. BotleySmith 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think I heard that David's main home is somewhere in America too and if this is true, like Roger, he most likely has house(s) in the UK aswell. ( Davehard 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC) )

The last I heard (an interview a few years back), Dave lives on a farm in Sussex. - dharmabum 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I heard about that too. ( Davehard 15:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC) )

"Future directions" section

This section is exceedingly long, containing endless contradictory statments about Waters and Gilmour's desires to do new Pink Floyd material - all well-referenced, but basically only of interest to the most avid Pink Floyd fans. It's way out of proportion to other sections, and the article could use some cutting. Does anyone have a problem with me condensing it drastically to basically reflect that Floyd will not be producing a new album or tour anytime in the forseeable future, while preserving the various references to interviews over the last several months reflecting their various statements? I'll wait a couple days before making any changes in this direction for feedback. - dharmabum 07:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems reasonable, dear Dharmabul, though I recommend you to avoid drastic cuts, unless such changes have been previoulsy agreed here, in order to prevent edit wars. --Doktor Who 08:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it's not like I want to remove the whole bit, but the constant "Waters said this, then said this" and then "Gilmour said this, but then said this 4 days later" seems too exhaustive for an encyclopedia entry; a summary of the various statements, preserving the links to outside references so people can look for more detail, seems to make more sense and will supply a tighter article. I'm trying to remember that this article should be more geared towards people who have never heard of Floyd and want information rather than people who are hardcore fans looking for precise details. - dharmabum 08:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, but to prevent edit wars, maybe you can post a rewrited version on this talk page to see how people reacts to your changes. Floyd(Norway) 10:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I created a revised section in a sandbox, which you can take a look at here. The references are a little messed up because it's just an excerpt, but I didn't remove any - actually, added a couple - and they'll look fine once integrated. - dharmabum 00:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your revised section is much better than the section which is in the article now. Floyd(Norway) 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've actually made a whole bunch more changes, moving large sections to the "1995-present" section if you want to take another look (these sections have been bothering me for awhile and I got on a roll). - dharmabum 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the changes and cleared my sandbox, which is why I struck out my comment above. I moved most of the material in "Future directions" to "1995-present", as most of it was in the past (why we had Live 8 under "future" I don't know). No substantive information was removed (mostly full quotes which can be found at the references anyway and repetition of information), several references were added, and I managed to reduce the size of the article by a couple of KB. - dharmabum 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions

[1]

Who was the bass player/vocalist in this video? --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy Pratt I think. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely Guy Pratt. - dharmabum 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Style

A Few places "Syd" and "Roger" are, inconsequently, referred to by their first names. Should that not be corrected? To me this style appears to be inappropriate and confusing (since they within the same paragraphs may be referred to by their surnames also).--Jeppebarnwell 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the few instances I could find of the use of "Syd" instead of "Barrett", but I didn't find any uses of "Roger" instead of "Waters" (there's one use of "Roger" in the article without a last name, the phrase that "[Barrett] again [went] by his given name, Roger"). - dharmabum 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just searched (Ctrl+F) for "Syd", "Roger", "David", "Nick", "Rick" and "Richard" individually and found no present instances of any of them not followed by a surname, except the one explained above. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 01:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Solo Work & Future Directions Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"also known as"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ambient Techno - Trance remixes

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

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

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

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

Category:Bands with only one constant member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite in heading

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

barrett

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

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

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

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

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

Band members chronology

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