Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Album Sales

Floyd has over 250 million album sales, since Live 8 they have blown away the 200, and they even had more than that before it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.111.121 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

References and notes

It seems to me that at whereas some of the notes refers to reliable sources, some, however, are of a rather doubtful quality.

• Note 1 refers to About.com (wikipedia should not just refer to another encyclopedia-like site in this case).
• Note 4 quotes the german newspaper Die Welt, but the link refers not to Die Welt's own website but to an indirect source (if it is not possibly to link to Die Welt, there should be no link but simply a reference to page and issue.
• Note 5: the link does not seem to work.
• Note 10: To back the argument that Pipers...is considered prime ex British psychedelic music, the website allmusic.com is referred to. Even though I am inclined to agree, personally, the argument does not seem very strong. It does not say who is he critic to make this judgement (it appears to be a guy called Steve Huey but I have never heard about him (yet I am no expert on music critics) and wikipedia has nothing on him!).
• Note 11 refers to http://pinkfloyd-co.com which is a fantastic site, however, it is a fan-site and not an official site and therefore it is an indirect source.
• Note 31 On an anecdote about the recordings of "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" refers to an unofficial site. It does not even say who is the author of the original article!
• Note 32 Same problem as note 4
• Note 39 refers to an extremely unreliable source of information.
• Note 42 is an extremely unreliable source of information which is also an indirect source.
• Note 45: same prob as note 1
• Note 47 is an indirect (however reliable)source. Direct information (e.g. from the record company) should be found.
• Note 48 the link refers to an article which provides no source of information whatsoever for its claim in this case.
• Note 53: Indirect information. Who is the author of the article? What are the sources of information?
• Note 54: Indirect information. Information appears to be based on oral conversation.
• Note 55: Same prob as note 4.
• Note 58 refers to a magazine, yet it does not indicate author issue or page number.
• Note 59. Is this a fan-like site? Who is the author, source of info, etc.?
• Note 61 refers to an interview in USA Today but does not indicate author (i.e. interviewer), page number, etc.
• Note 62: same as note 59

And I might have missed a lot........

A general problem is also that the same notes are used more than once which does that they are not always chronological. I do not know if this is wiki-style (I sincerely doubt it!) but this is not a style that I have come across anywhere else. The way to do it is to make a new note with a new number every time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.145.105.170 (talk • contribs)

Bear in mind that this is a Wikipedia article, and while we strive to improve it (and the quality of the references) continually, it's not an article for academic publication, although it might one day reach that quality. The internet itself isn't an acceptable source in academic publications, even a freshman essay. The internet causes unique problems, and an acceptable source for Wikipedia can't always be dictated on strict guidelines; for instance, note 54 is based on an oral conversation, which isn't acceptable academically. For a Wikipedia article on Pink Floyd, a conversation reported on the most trustworthy Floyd news site between the site's editors and Pink Floyd's management is perfectly acceptable, IMO. Sometimes problems are caused, as with note 55, by the fact that the original source can't be linked or provided because it's on a subscriber-based website, and a link to an indirect source (once again on a very trustworthy site) is better than nothing. And sometimes, as in note 5, links just change or get broken.

As for the formatting on multiple notes, that is the way the Cite.php system works. It keeps the references section from getting overly long. There are still clear links between each individual use of the reference with the references section. Forcing a new number for each use would just inflate the size of the references section with redundant material and increase the KB on the article by around 10K on an article already well beyond optimal page size.

All that said, quite a few points you raised need addressing and I'll start chipping away at them. - dharmabum 20:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright: I see now that I may have been to quick in my criticism on some of the points, at least. Note 55, for example, seems, in principle, to be a good way to get around the problem (saying Music Week, 16 July 2005, retrieved here (with a link) on 9 July 2006). Though the author, i.e. interviewer, must be clearly indicated! However, the idea to indicate the "real" source followed by a link to an (indirect) source where the article can be found is in principle good, I believe. This method could, advantageously, be reproduced in note 4, 32,(and many others) so you do not click on a link saying Die Welt, for example, and then to be taken to an indirect source.

I understand that a wikipedia article is not an academic publication, yet I believe that the difference between the two genres is a matter of level of details rather than of reliability. In some of the cases where the notes refer to doubtful sources, it is basicaly not a weakness of the reference but a weakness of the argument of the article. E.g. is the problem with note 10 not only that it refers to a dodgy source, the problem is also that the claim in the main text is an overstatement (not according to my personal opinion but technically speaking). The claim that Pipers... today is considered to be a prime example of British psychedelic music promises more than it keeps given that (or as long as) nobody has been able to find substantial documentation. This seems to me to be a general problem also in the cases where more accepted sources are referred to. E.g. is the problem with note 11 not at all that it refers to a dodgy source (it does not), but simply that the claim in the main text is an overstatement as to the the reference it gives. The main text claims that Pipers... "is now viewed as one of the better debut albums by many critics"; this is definitely an overstatement since the note refers to only one article (i.e. not many) in the Rolling Stones from 1968 (i.e. definetely not "now"). In principle, there is nothing wrong with oral sources, for example, as long as they are not presented as generally accepted facts or as long as their validity is not overstated. If the main text could be formulated more in concordance with the documentation it draws upon, using expression like "according to some sources..." in the less certain cases, the article as a whole would appear more trustworthy.

Regarding the multiple note system, I still think that it is highly problematic (e.g. it will cause considerable methodolocial problems if I quote a wikipedia note in another context, since in the case a reader would like to track back this quote s/he would find that it, ambiguosly, refers to two different places in the main text!), yet I see now that it is considered "official" wikipedia style, so that must be the way it is. So, my apologies for complaining about it here.

Anyways, I think the Pink Floyd article is generally really really great. Good luck with the never-ending process of improving it!!--Jeppebarnwell 11:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like how the article mentions specific references in the text of the article. That is what the footnotes are for. Dates are okay because they provide context, but why does a reader care if DG talked to La Repubblica or Rolling Stone or East Podunk Village Weekly? -207.145.105.170 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this point of view, and I will change the article accordingly in a few days, unless someone will oppose.--Doktor Who 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Waters' v. Waters's

The recent minor reversion only took into account one instance of "Waters's", whereas my previous edits were consistent: I altered them all to omit the final 's'. Although both forms are considered to be acceptable written grammar, the previous edit added a clumsy and unnecessary syllable, rendering the pronunciation as "Waterses". The Apostrophe article states: "...a good practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged best". Maybe it's just my judgement, but to my mind, I would argue that brevity wins every time. This minor quibble aside, I must add that it is a really well written and researched article. Chris 42 16:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Waters' is still pronounced "Waterses." --Macarion 03:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, "Waters'" is the British grammatical conjunction - so far as I am aware, "Waters's" is only American. And, well, Pink Floyd are a British band... Not the most convincing argument, but a consideration. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.97.248.74 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 September 2006.

Point of information: "Waters'" is not pronounced "Waters'es'", which is precisely why it's written the way it is. The additional "s" is plain wrong. Maybe not in the Americas, but anywhere else in the world. Cain Mosni 17:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The additional "s" is plain wrong ? Not in London (St. James's Park), nor according to the Economist - "Use the normal possessive ending 's after singular words or names that end in s: boss's, caucus's, Delors's, St James's, Jones's, Shanks's." (This is not UK vs US) http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=841359 -- Beardo 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Average Track Length?

Has anyone ever worked out the Average Length of each song by Pink Floyd? I think it would be interesting to compare a Prog Rock band like Pink Floyd, with all their epic songs to a band such as The Beatles, with simpler compositions, and overall shorter songs. Just a thought Cowards 22:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. I have the Pink Floyd Early Singles and all the studio albums and except Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother in my media library and it clocks in at 10:10:14. Adding the lengths of those two albums as described on their Wikipedia pages and deducting the live songs on Ummagumma, it arrives at 11:49:50 which is equal to 42590 seconds. with 134 items in my media library plus 5 song from Atom Heart Mother and 12 songs from Ummagumma (feel free to dispute the number of songs there) comes to 151 songs. 42590 / 151 = 282 seconds or 4:42 per song. Offski 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

'More' Album

Would this be considered a Floyd album really? I know that they made it, but would it be classified as a soundtrack, or an independant album like say, Dark Side of the Moon? Kaiser matias 07:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone question that it counts as a Floyd album. I mean, seeing that it's an album consisting entirely of Pink Floyd music and all, to say nothing of several of the tracks being live staples for a significant period.

And at the very least, it's inconsistent to not count More but to include Obscured by Clouds, which is just as much a soundtrack. PurplePlatypus 07:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would humbly contend that the two albums in question may be appropriate for placement in the "Studio Album" category. Both albums were full length albums intended for distribution under the name "Pink Floyd", whereas the others were found on actual soundtrack compilations. I do not disagree with any of you gentlemen in the least, as both are legitimate soundtracks. Just putting out another friendly point of view. ASimmer83 06:14, 10 November 2006

Picture.... yet again

can somebody get a copyright clearance for one of the 5 member pics so the copyright nazi's aren't all over this again. the picture with 4 is not a complete picture of the band in its entirety, especially when such rare images exist

Sorted. It's not a clearance, but now I've found the source and added a rationale that 5 member pic is just as fair use as the 4 member one, if not more. the wub "?!" 16:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet Again, Roger Waters is NOT a member of Pink Floyd

Somebody once again has added Roger Waters as a current member of the group. This is not the case. Based on recent press releases, Pink Floyd is still legally David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Richard Wright. Last year at Live 8, Waters performed as a guest of Floyd and did NOT officially rejoin the band. Tkd73 24:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jazz influence on DSotM

The article currently says "Saxophone forms an important part of the album's sound, exposing the band's jazz influences", but just using a saxophone doesn't instantly make something Jazz. What exposes the influence A HELL OF A LOT more is the use of a 7/4 time signature. Besides, the influence was already "exposed" with the releases of semi-free-form, quasi-improvised 20+ minute tracks they had been doing for years. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Exposed" is probably not the best choice of words for the reasons that you have described (in fact, the article makes reference to "jazzy" songs before DSOTM). In any case, I think Rick Wright's comment that he used a chord change from Kind of Blue in "Breathe" would be more relevant to the "jazz influence" than the use of saxophone, although both should probably be mentioned. InTheFlesh? 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was on the Classic Albums documentary, right? Which just further enforces my point that the Jazz influence is in many ways more blatant than just using a sax. I'm not saying the bit about sax being "an important part of the album's sound" should be taken out, but it's barely related to Jazz at all. It seems to me to just detract from the whole influence issue. You can do more damage to your point with a weak argument than by saying nothing at all. MightyMoose22 ^{>Abort, Retry, Fail?_} 03:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

album art

Should I keep adding the album art to all of their releases?Mastercheif 04:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about those images imbedded within the article text itself then I think it's getting way too cluttered. Some of the image alignments force very thin column that are difficult to read. I think we should reduce some of the unnecessary clutter. Ignitus 07:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Footnote #53

"Waters was also invited to perform, but final rehearsals for his 2006 Europe/U.S. tour required him to decline"

Source: Video Interview with Nick Mason

Website: www.rogerwaters2006.com

I haven't watched the video, so I don't know if Waters makes an appearance. I do also note that it's from a Waters website.

Ordinarily, though, this strikes me as being a very bad source. It's what a lawyer would call "hearsay". The only person qualified to state why Waters didn't appear is Waters himself. Unless Waters appears on the vid, or its placement on the rogerwaters2006.com was personally approved by Waters and he endorses the content, a new source should be found, or the text reworded to say "according to Mason". --kingboyk 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sales (with a more reliable source)

After a comment at Talk:List of best-selling music artists, I noticed that the sales figure mentioned in this article is sourced from a wikipedia mirror site, which is really stupid for obvious reasons. The List of best-selling music artists currently uses [1] as a source, which claims sales of 200 million instead of the 250 million stated in this article. If you can find a source to back the 250M, please fix it at the aforementioned list, if not, please fix the sales here. Thanks. - Bobet 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually nevermind (unless someone reverts me), I fixed it myself since someone changed the sales figure a few weeks ago in order to put the band on the list in the first place. - Bobet 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Covers

I'm not exactly sure where, but somewhere in the article we could collaborate a list of Pink Floyd covers. You know - bands who've covered their tunes. That'd be interesting because I know of several off the top of my head. Filter1987 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I've seen a lot of the other big artists have these types of articles. Why no Floyd one? Somebody should make one, and apologies if I just haven't found it.

The new "concensus" around Wikipedia is that "in Pop Culture" and "trivia" sections are very un-encyclopedic. They are slowly being eliminated fro most articles...especially pages like Pink Floyd that article featured articles. If those types of "pop fluff" are added into FA pages they usually end up loosing their FA status when the page comes up for review. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel a pop culture mention is encyclopedic, you could create Pink Floyd in popular culture article. There is a Category:Popular culture that many of these articles are in. Lets the main article stay high quality, while also allowing such information to be compiled. *Spark* 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article once sported such a section. It got too big and was cited as an obstacle to getting it to FA status, so it was farmed off into Pink Floyd trivia. PurplePlatypus 03:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Tonite let's all make Love in London sessions

I wrote up a paragraph on this as it's now out on a CD. However I don't know how to put it into an infobox or put up a picture. Perhaps a more computer-savvy person could oblige? Totnesmartin 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Syd in the Infobox

Just wondering if the Infobox should show when Syd (+ Roger and Bob) left Pink Floyd and more specifically that Syd left Pink Floyd before he died. I know all the info is in the article and 99% of people will know that Syd left in '68 but I think it could mislead the odd person into thinking Syd was a member of Pink Floyd up to his death this year. It's something I thought about changing myself but I'd rather link to see what other people think first. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 10:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont think it should say "(deceased)" next to Syd's name, because that does suggest that Syd left the band due to his death. Apart from that, I think the dates are OK being explained further down the article. -- jeffthejiff 13:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Where's the fair use rationale?

Just a quick browsing through images and audio files and you don't seem to have any. This is actually a requirement for Featured Articles. Someone needs to fix this before the need for a review is brought up.--SeizureDog 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a stub, methinks

sorry to just intrude like this, and edit the above person's comment, but someone needs to tidy up the pictures on the article...they're repetitive and incorrect. That is all. - George Rusu,

Barrett disease

I am surprised that the mental health deterioration of Syd Barrett is still attributed to drug abuse, while, due to the duration of this state, the diagnosis of schizophrenia is much more likely.

Though I don't know that much about psychology, I tend to agree. However, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research, even if it's just coming to rather obvious conclusions from a given data set. If you can find a published source that says something like that and add a reference to it to the article, I would be very happy to see that happen. PurplePlatypus 08:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)