Talk:The Endless River/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources?

AFAIK there's no source for Jackson being co-producer of the album, also Youth is only mentioned by an unverified Twitter account and not even directly. There's lots of speculation floating around, incl. the possible but unsourced tracklist. Can't we just wait for the official statement coming in the next few hours? 91.58.168.135 (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Few hours are over. ;-) 91.58.168.135 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed

Pink Floyd confirmed the announcement on twitter: https://twitter.com/pinkfloyd/status/486195646203195392 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.142.249 (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Record label(s)

The record label does not appear to have been announced. It's certainly not cited in the article, and what is there fails WP:SYNTHESIS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This issue was brought up with RazorEyeEdits, who I believe was the one originally asserting this in the article. jhsounds (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny how you say that it isn't sourced in the article, even though there's an entire paragraph, with sources, on Pink Floyd's label history post-The Division Bell and during the EMI sale. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically the sources just talk about Pink Floyd moving to a different label, not that the new album will be on it. I believe that is where the repeated question of synthesis comes in. You've argued that this is "common sense" but it would be much better if an outside source connected the dots, rather than a wiki editor doing so. jhsounds (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I honestly think a Parlophone band is going to release their albums under Parlophone. I mean, I honestly have never heard of an artist releasing an album under a completely different label to the one they're currently under. That's just how the music industry works. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you do honestly think that. That's not what Wikipedia requires for verifiability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice the link to WP:SYNTHESIS in my first comment in this section? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the promotional image of its summer Campaign clearly listed Parlophone, it will be surely going to release under it, though in accordance with the guideline, one image does not hold value. --G(x) (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre-release reception

Mike Portnoy Quote

The line "Mike Portnoy, best known as the former drummer and founding member of progressive metal and rock band Dream Theater, took to social media to state his opposition to The Endless River being released under the Pink Floyd name without Waters. He stated that it was "disrespectful to Roger and everything he built for all those years"" So what? Who cares what some other guy thinks and how is this worthy of inclusion? Is he a noted music critic, or someone who just happens to have access to "social media". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that undue importance is being given to this persons opinion given the lack of solid information about the album. Roger Waters has stated several times that he is no interested in being involved, so Mike's opinion is of little worth in my eyes. Chillum 13:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are pretty opinionated statements. This is an encyclopedia, don't forget. We're not here to prove what's right or wrong, we're here to document. After all, one could also say "who cares about the opinions of some random music critic that nobody cares about?". Mike Portnoy is a big figure in the music industry, being a member of Dream Theater of course, and his quote is pretty useful in helping to document the reaction to the album. Alot of people share his opinion, it's not like he's the only person who thinks Roger Waters should've been on this album. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 21:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Lugnuts and Chillum, and have again removed this material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That isn't exactly an argument, outside of essentially telling me "the first two people are right in my opinion, therefore, I'm going to revert your edits". PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been told there was consensus here. Where exactly is it? I've put forward my argument, but it doesn't seem like anybody's listening. All I've gotten is a reply that essentially said my opinion doesn't count for some reason. I've tried to reinstate the material again, with a second reference to verify the notability of Pontry's comments, three weeks after I last posted in this discussion and I've been reverted again with a poor explanation saying that there was consensus. What's going on here? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've just reverted yet another attempt by User:RazorEyeEdits (aka PhilipTerryGraham) to include this quote. Please don't add it again, unless there is demonstrable consensus here to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

See above; more specifically, there is no consensus for your addition. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen anybody offer any evidence that this source is a reliable source on the subject of an unreleased Pink Floyd album. Social media is rarely a reliable source, and a secondary source covering social media is not much better unless it takes the same position itself rather than just reporting on the social media. A policy based argument has been for forward and has not been refuted.

I find RazorEyeEdits trivializing people's opinion as "the first two people are right in my opinion, therefore, I'm going to revert your edits" to be a bit dismissive. We have made an argument and it has not been refuted.

The content should remain out of the article until there is a consensus to include it now that a policy based concern has been made about the source. Chillum 16:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Whole section

I think it sucks that Bob Klose isn't on the new disk,do I get my own section?71.47.189.1 (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The pre-release section of the reception subheading is meant to document the reaction to the album before its release. It just happens that a lot of the negative reaction to the album's announcement was because of the fact Roger Waters had no involvement with it and that the album was being released under the Pink Floyd name nonetheless. If there was a significant negative reaction to the absence of Bob Klose, it would be documented. However, there is no significant negative response. Therefore, it wouldn't be true to document that people reacted negatively to the album because Bob Klose wasn't involved. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 04:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

its just lame bro,i got over Waters absence 25 years ago.he is coming out with a new solo album so maybe it should have a section where people get upset about it because he chose to do that instead of working on the new Floyd disk.like I said..its just lame to document him NOT being there.71.47.189.1 (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

"News of the impending release was positively received, whereas the record itself was later met with a mixed reception.[1]" One single site, 6 half hearted reviews is hardly mixed reception, especially two days before the album is released. Reading through the other comments, I question who wrote this poor excuse for an article? Angeloh (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If there's a problem with the lead's description of the album reception, the problem is actually in the "critical reception" section, which the lead is supposed to summarize. See WP:LEAD for more information. jhsounds (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

CQuote

Per its documentation, {{Cquote}} is for pull quotes, and should not be used in ariticle bodies, as it is here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I've removed Cquote at your request, and have substituted it for Template:Quote instead. However, I don't exactly understand why it can't be used in articles. The design of the template is just alot more appealing than any other quote templates, especially the boxed ones! PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Backing Vocals "Sarah Brown"?

I'm reading the article and I thought read "Sarah Brown". "Sarah"? Is Sarah or Sam Brown? I think is Sam. Yes. Must be "Sam" or Samantha. Or has she got some sister singer? Maybe. But I think the Floyd's backing vocalist is Sam. "Stop", do you remember?

Who is Sarah?

Thanks! DIGESOC (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok! I found a singer called "Sarah Brown". She maybe a backing vocal for Pink Floyd. Sam is most known. But "Sarah"? Then, Sam was not on recording sessions. Sorry!!! DIGESOC (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Disbanded

We now have repeated insertions of a statement, not supported by the given reference, and certainly not supported by sources in general, that "Pink Floyd uneventfully disbanded". This should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just removed a further set of uncited references to the band's supposed dissolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Misquote

There is a misquote on Footnote # 22: Ostroff, Joshua (7 July 2014). "Dark Side Of Pink Floyd's 'New' Album". The Huffington Post. AOL (Time Warner). Retrieved 11 July 2014.

In the paraphrase the author incorrectly refers to the "Three" as Gilmour, Mason and Wright. In the original article the writer was referring to the fact that in his opinion the three Pink Floyd albums that did not include Waters, Gilmour, Mason and Wright were not as good along with the individual members' solo albums. The "Three" the author of the original article was referring to were "The Final Cut, "A Momentary Lapse of Reason" and "The Division Bell". The page for "The Endless River" should be changed to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc27miller (talk • contribs) 01:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done I've edited the sentence so that it would reflect the referenced article better. Thanks for pointing the misquote out. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 12:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

On double vinyl

It seems that The Endless River will be released as a double vinyl record. This should be added. See: http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/photos-of-pink-floyds-new-album-the-endless-river-on-vinyl 162.156.25.153 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

November 11, 2014

The Billboard is giving November 11, 2014 as the release date http://www.billboard.com/photos/6229383/fall-2014-album-preview-new-music-72-must-hear-releases?i=529920 162.156.25.153 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Billboard's Fall album preview is not reliable, because they got some dates wrong. In the same 2014 fall album preview, they had listed Nicki Minaj's The Pinkprint as having a November 28 release date, when, however, there was no release date determined. Just because a source has a big name like Billboard attached to it, doesn't immediately make it a reliable source. Just sayin' PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 01:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The release date in Europe is November 10, 2014. It seems that November 11, 2014 is indeed correct for North America. It will be 1 CD, 2LP, and limited CD + DVD or CD + Blu-ray release. See: https://www.jpc.de/s/pink+floyd+endles 24.84.24.60 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

According to Amazon.com, it will be released in the states on November 10th 2014, not the 11th--108.85.149.233 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Anybody with a Times subscription? - Source Request

The Times has published an interesting article on The Endless River that seems to hold a lot of valuable information about the album. The article is entitled "Pink Floyd launch artwork for The Endless River, their first album in 20 years". The problem is, it requires a subscription to The Times to be able to read. Is it possible that any editor here has a Times subscription so that they can access the article and copy + paste it somehow? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 21:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You could try posting this at WP:RX as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Alex Young's Info vs. UNCUT

In the November issue of Uncut magazine ... (sic)

Certain IP inserted the message of this paragraph based on Consequence of Sound article, which, in turn, quoted the info from someone who reproduce it from UNCUT magazine of that issue. I wonder if ANYBODY can verify the info and do changes mutatis mutandis, and not only just inserting . --124.120.230.65 (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm it's on page 38. There is a left column, including

“Another rumour about The Endless River is that it also incorporates material from the ‘soundscape’ used on the cassette edition of Pulse, the Division Bell tour album. “That soundscape existed from the tour before,” says Jackson.”

Regarding The Big Spliff -

“Since new of The Endless River first broke, it has been speculated that it would be based on the ‘Big Spliff’ mash-up made by Andy Jackson. This is categorically not the case.” --H.McC. (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

'Under construction' template

I have again removed an 'Under construction' template; it is not appropriate for an article as already developed as this. Furthermore, no-one is entitled to lock an article such as this for hours; much less days. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Under construction template does not in any way imply that the article is locked. The message itself also encourages users to assist in the development of the article. On September 23 through to 25, there were numerous edits to this article, which also included a large log of edits from you on September 24. The under construction banner was used to signify that the article is in a state of rapid expansion. It has nothing to do with the points you raised here. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Lenght of tracks

The tracklist with the track lenghts appeared partially in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A1vEl_mX98. Christo jones (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That video should probably be listed on the page as a source, then. I wonder if someone could get a sufficiently clear frame from the video for the remaining track lengths? They could be visible when the camera first zooms in, but there's a bit of motion blur at that point. 77topaz (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect statement about last reunion of Pink Floyd that included Waters

The statement "The event marked the first and only reunion of the 1970s Pink Floyd line-up on stage after Waters' departure" is incorrect. They reunited for a single show during Water's recent "Wall" tour on May 12, 2011. I think you can also include another reunion at the Hoping Foundation benefit concert in 2011 (which was the impetus for getting Gilmour to show up for one show during the "Wall" tour. See this Rolling Stones article for more details : http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/pink-floyd-reunite-at-roger-waters-show-in-london-20110512 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasloo (talk • contribs) 23:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Where was Richard Wright? Not there. He had passed away prior to both events. Note the first sentence of the source you linked: "The surviving members of Pink Floyd reunited onstage tonight at London's 02 Arena". PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 18:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Title

"The endless river" is a line from High Hopes. 78.52.103.95 (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Hans

Composition

Polly Samson did not write lyrics for 'A Momentary Lapse of Reason'. She did write lyrics for 'The Division Bell' and David Gilmour's 'On an Island' album. Cc27miller (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Charles, September 28, 2014.

 Done I've corrected my cock-up. Thanks for noticing and bringing it to attention! PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 23:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Running time

Are the tracks running times in the article confirmed officially? According to these, the whole album runs less than 45mins, that makes no sense on a double LP. 85.177.89.244 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Hans

For what it's worth, double-LPs of that length have been done before. [1]. jhsounds (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What's the reference for the running times? Thanks. 85.177.89.235 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Hans

The running times of 4 tracks are not mentioned. The album will be longer than 45 min, but until now the running times of only 14 tracks are known. The following video (seconds 19-21) shows the back cover of the album: [2] Christo jones (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should revert the track lengths section to Christo's version, then? 77topaz (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and also, the writing credits would need to be verified as well as the running times. 77topaz (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the extra track times were added by an IP: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Endless_River&diff=628564266&oldid=628562906 77topaz (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Reaction

Roger Waters left Pink Floyd nigh on three decades ago - loonger than he was with them. Devoting the large majority of the "reaction" section to one or two people who fail to grasp that surely fails WP:UNDUE, and such material should be trimmed to a minimum, if not removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They represent a view shared by a significant portion of the Pink Floyd fan community. Have you jumped onto a Pink Floyd forum or website? There will be a lot of Roger-related comments whining about how he's not on the album and that he's what makes Pink Floyd, ect. It should be noted that there was alot of backlash initially, and we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen just because Roger made a statement or the backlash has died down. That would be a cover-up; something that should never happen on Wikipedia in my honest opinion. PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 03:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The section under discussion is not about fan forums, and I'm not convinced that we should give much space to people who "review" an album they've never heard. Again, WP:UNDUE is relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

I don't think we should have any reaction section at all until the album is released. Any source critiquing an album they have never heard is unreliable to me. Chillum 16:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the stuff about Waters not being involved was undue weight, and certainly not deserving of its own section (the "Pre-release" bit). It only covered one or two critics anyway. Any stuff that's relevant - eg critics saying something like "this album would have been better with Waters" - can be mentioned in its proper place, the critical reaction section. Popcornduff (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Richard Wright and RedBeard

There are some quotes Wright made, inter alia, We actually had four 90 Minute DAT or five or six hours of music... For enthusiasts, RedBeard hosted the particular recording here. The paragraph can be found from 6:45 onwards.--124.120.43.35 (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Writing credits

Who has supplied the supposed writing credits for each track? It has been stated that Wright wrote or co-wrote 12 of them, yet only 11 have been credited here. No info on the writing of the tracks has been released and this is just speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.242.73 (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Final studio album"

I understand Gilmour has stated it is the last album, but he had stated also before that Pink Floyd would not do anything anymore. I would not call this album final before he (or both Mason and Waters) have passed away. 87.93.88.93 (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. Another album will be pretty unlikely, but not any more unlikely than this one was. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We should quote what Gilmour says, which is, "I suspect this is it." (p. 45 of Prog article already cited). Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there's been a little back and forth in the article on this, but I'm experiencing a little back and forth myself and I now think that "final" is perfectly acceptable. A recent edit summary noted that "it's sufficient to take Gilmour's word for it", and I think that's a fair statement, especially when you consider their advanced age. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That comment was from me. I'm actually a little unsure on this one, but I think when creators say they intend a work to be the final instalment in a body of work, we should probably report it as the final work until further notice. For example, the article for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows reports that it's the final book in the Harry Potter book series, even though JK Rowling could announce a new one tomorrow if she wanted to. Popcornduff (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC) 20:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Critical reception" section is overwritten

I maintain the current critical reception section is drastically overwritten. My copy edits have been reverted twice. Here's my rationale for my changes.

"Upon its release in November 2014..." The construction "upon its release" is almost never justified. Albums are very rarely reviewed before they're finished and released, and even if they were, who cares? What do these words tell the reader?

"The Endless River was met with mixed to lukewarm positive reviews". Can you see how clunky this is, how hedged in modifiers? "Lukewarm positive reviews"? Wikipedia must be concise and clear. If an album receives a mixture of positive, mixed and negative reviews, then it received, by definition, "mixed reviews"; that's sufficient.

"an improvement from the negative reception met by the band's previous studio album, The Division Bell." What's your source for this? The Division Bell, based on its Wikipedia article, also received average/mixed reviews. Is this necessary?

"Positive reception was mainly based on the album's musical freedom and lack of lyrical content, with some stating that the instrumental nature of the album had worked in favor of the band's intentions. Negativity centered around the anticlimactic and, as described by some, "boring" sound of the album." I saw you defend this in the edit summary with "one may not be inclined to read all the reviews", but there aren't enough reviews in the section yet to be worth summarising as you have done here - especially when you strip away the unnecessary words and overlong quotes that swamp our reporting of those reviews. You basically read this section and then read exactly the same thing in the next paragraph.

I've never seen a Wikipedia article make such a point of specifying which country reviews come from, and I don't see how it's relevant. You argue that "we mention the origin of newspapers and websites because some reviewers may be influenced by their culture or surroundings". Do you really believe that? The reviewers might be influenced by their age or gender too, or their political affiliation... this isn't reducto ad absurdum, I truly think those things likely have equal bearing on their reviews. We quite simply don't need to be told if a source is English or Australian or American or whatever, especially not as such length.

Finally, we don't need to describe reviews when we can simply quote them. Sentences like "gave the album a very harsh review", for example, are emotive and border on POV writing; we should be neutral and report the content of the review and no more. Popcornduff (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's been a few hours, so I've copy-edited the section again, merging in the pre-release section which I didn't think was deserving of its own section, and adding a few more quotes. Popcornduff (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Tour section

User:HurluGumene, can you explain why you believe the Tour section should stand?

Everything in this section can be covered in one sentence: "Gilmour stated that there will be no tour to support the album, saying it was "impossible" without Wright." We don't need the Wootton reference as it simply says the same thing from a less important source.

MOS:PARAGRAPHS states that "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Yes, "generally" implies there may be exceptions, but I don't believe this is an exception. We don't need a section to cover something that isn't happening. It's a non-event, literally. Popcornduff (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I already did: Why not?! Besides, this section IS A PRECIOUS ONE since a single sentence drown in this wiki article is hardly readable!!! Simple as that! Period! HurluGumene (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is this section "A PRECIOUS ONE", and why is a single sentence "hardly readable"? Popcornduff (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

People deserve to get easily this information but a single sentence is inevitably lost some place hard to find into the article!!! Don't you undertand? Ain't that obvious enough? HurluGumene (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would including this information in the Promotion section make it hard to find? Isn't that where you would expect to find it if you were looking for it?

You are attaching far too much weight to bit of information so tiny it's almost non-information: that a tour will not happen. Compare this to the FA OK Computer article, for example. The OK Computer album was promoted with an extensive world tour and this is covered sufficiently in that article's "Release and promotion" section. No "tour" section is necessary, and that's for an album that actually had a tour.

An album that has no tour does not require a Tour section. Good grief. Popcornduff (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the tour section is used only for albums that were promoted with a tour. For example, the album The Final Cut was not promoted on a tour and has no tour section. I also suggest that the tour section be merged with the promotion section and that the introductory part features the sentence about the album not being promoted by a tour.Milosppf (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I totally disagree: a non-happening tour is a valuable information on its own... Concerning The Final Cut, it was never meant to be promoted on a tour. There was a possibility for The Endless River to be promoted on a tour... until Gilmour denied... HurluGumene (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

There was never, as far as we know, any possibility of a tour for The Endless River. Popcornduff (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm here to offer a third opinion per this request. I understand User:HurluGumene's argument that the information on the (non) tour would be more difficult to find if incorporated under promotions, and also take the point that readers curious about a tour should be able to find the information readily. However, as other editors have pointed out there are several reasons not to include this section. As a compromise, I suggest noting the lack of a tour in both the lead and the promotions section. This will make the information more visible, and we won't have the problem of a one-sentence section for a tour that doesn't exist. Keihatsu ^talk 00:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Who says so, Popcornduff?... At last, some fine understanding from Keihatsu... although I still disagree with his solution... HurluGumene (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to say this is a fine waste of time! If every Wikipedia page included sections for 'negative information' we would be here until doomsday just reading one article. It's rather like including a section on 'marriage' in the biography of a bachelor that says 'X did not marry'. Any competent search engine which is queried for 'endless river tour' will find the page, whether there's a section or not. Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Side 1" and so forth

@75.147.113.101: I do not have a copy, please discuss the issue here. If other editors agree with you and you can gain WP:CONSENSUS the so be it. Good luck, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@75.147.113.101: If you want compromise on this article then the place to do that, is here. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What I am trying to make clear is that, in the case of The Endless River, the words Side 1 - Side 4 are not merely record side designations, but are the titles of the 4 pieces of music that make up the whole of the album. Considering that they ARE titles, they should be written in the headings as they are printed on the official packaging, and in quotation marks. You have pointed to the style guide and MOS and are suggesting that these heading should be written according to the style and formatting specified there. I completely understand what you are saying, and would normally agree when simply denoting CD or record sides; however, this case is different because the NAMES of the pieces are literally "Side 1" and so forth. "Side 1" is literally the actual name of a complete piece of music, and not simply a side designation. I am asking you to please consider that. I would appreciate a reasonable response to my logical justification in making this change, as you appear to be simply dismissing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.113.101 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@75.147.113.101: The text you're changing is part of the "Track listing" table which is a format across Wikipedia, if there is a song, chapter or volume listed on the album cover, then that's different and this needs to be discussed here. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, consistency is a fair reason, so in that case, to maintain consistency while accurately listing the tracks, the format of the track listing should probably be changed to (for example): | headline = Side one | title1 = Side 1"

I. "Things Left Unsaid" (4:26)

II. "It's What We Do" (6:17)

III. "Ebb and Flow" (1:55)

Is that acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.113.101 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I can not comment on that, I do not have the album to reference. I made all my reverts on the basis you were changing an established MOS guideline. Other editors will have to join this discussion to validate your claims. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@75.147.113.101: Is this the list for which you claim "Side 1" - "Side 2" are not section headers and are actually songs themselves ? Also please stop making your changes to this topic until consensus is reached. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits to the artwork section

"The Thames Skiff is sourced in the Powell interview and is very relevant considering it was recorded in Astoria on theTHAMES river," says the IP editor. But that citation isn't placed after the statement, and I'm not even sure which citation the Thames statement is in. We need to source this claim properly, or I'll remove it.

The section as it stands has some monstrously long sentences: 'In an interview with Redbeard (of In the Studio) to premiere the album in the US, David Gilmour stated that finding the right artwork for The Endless River was a problem because of Storm's passing and thought the right decision was to collaborate with Hipgnosis co-founder Aubrey Powell [32] who in turn discovered 18-year-old Egyptian artist Ahmed Emad Eldin and asked to use the concept from Eldin's piece Beyond the Sky for The Endless River.[33]'

"Also David Gilmour and Nick Mason each told Redbeard that the final cover presented for the album was terrific.[32]" A completely unenlightening quote. Some interesting bit of information about the intent or meaning or process behind the artwork would be relevant. Gilmour and Mason saying they think the artwork on their album is "terrific" is not. Popcornduff (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)