Talk:The Final Cut (album)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about The Final Cut (album). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

General

Can somebody spell check this?

Spellchecked to American English (Besides the exception of "Defence Medal" [British Spelling of an original British Word]).-Vincetti (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Second Pink Floyd article I've consulted today, and this also (the other was Meddle) throws up that word "rumoured", "claimed", "many have said" etc. I want to read the article for FACTS not rumour, speculation, gossip. 84.13.246.35 10:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed two instances of this; may not be done.-Vincetti (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Album Story

Do you think anything else should be added concerning the "story" of the album? I marked down what I thoguht it was from the lyrics, any other ideas of what he was saying? Habsfannova 15:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought the teacher did try to kill himself in The Final Cut, but someone else told me it was Roger Waters' character trying to isolate himself. Mad, I removed any mention of The Final Cut on the teacher's story and made the Track ten part a third story.

Next Album - Works

I replaced the next album link which was Momentary Lapse with Works. I was reading through all the albums tonight, and other compliations from the band were in the order, so Works should be too. A Nice Pair & Relics were in the "next - previous" sequence, so this should be too.

Looks like someone deleted all notice of Works and Momentary Lapse, so I would consider this concluded. -Vincetti (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

Cover

I thought the album art was with 'pink floyd the final cut' in white on it. --Leoremy 20:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on some later releases of the album, Pink Floyd: The Final Cut is present in white. But on the first release, there was nothing. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so, I'm afraid. I bought my copy the week it was released and it has a sticker with Pink Floyd The Final Cut on the front.NH78.147.153.46 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the above user is still correct. The cover originally had no title on it, but stickers bearing the title were always added - hence the cover does not actually include the title or any other writing, the sticker is not part of the cover art and is supposed to be removable. The same is true of The Wall, Waters wanted the cover to feature nothing but the white bricks, which it did, but a large sticker with 'Pink Floyd The Wall' printed on it was usually added. Later releases of the two albums on CD (and possibly on vinyl as well) have included the titles as part of the cover art but they were not intended to be by Waters. MarkB79 (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so, I'm afraid!! My point was in reference to the user who said that on early releases there was nothing. Well there was the sticker on some copies such as mine but not on others. The sticker is not removable at least without tearing the cover. The title was never actually printed on the cover until it was released as a CD. The Wall, however, which I also bought the week it came out had a clear floppy vinyl label which WAS removable as it was not self adhesive, but clung to the cover in the way that cling film "sticks"NH89.243.233.101 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that in North America, albums are shrink wrapped before they leave the factory, and stickers are usually applied to the shrinkwrap, and usually disposed of when the wrap is removed. Therefore, stickers are regarded as advertising, and in the same class as the price tag: not part of the artwork. In Europe, stickers are viewed with a different level of importance. I've never seen the floppy vinyl sticker. If such things were attached to imported copies, they must have been removed before they got over here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This may all be true but it dosen't alter the fact that the sticker is not part of the cover art. It was presumably added by the record company because the cover art did not include a title or the band's name to identify the album (or perhaps the band themselves did it for the same reason, since they did not want the title to be a part of the actual cover art). So technically there was nothing in the way of text on the album cover itself, the sticker was an addition. I did say the sticker was supposed to be removable, whether it is or not is another matter (I imagine you would indeed damage the cover if you did remove it, unless you used extreme care perhaps). I know the Wall sticker certainly was removable as you say. However while I have often seen copies of The Final Cut with the sticker (and some copies which you can tell have clearly had the sticker removed), I have yet to see any original copy of The Wall with the sticker over here. Waters was quite clear that he wanted the cover of The Wall to include nothing but the white bricks and I imagine he had similar ideas about The Final Cut so I don't think considering stickers added to the front cover to be a part of the cover art is correct, even if record companies have since incorporated them into the CD artwork. MarkB79 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this is all missing the point rather. Although Leoremy who asked the question does ask about the "album art", I didn't get the impression that he was asking whether the sticker constitutes cover art. I think he was just asking why some copies had Pink Floyd The Final Cut on and some didn't and this was the question I was answering. Someone had also asked a very similar question on the Dark Side page. Greatest Person Ever's response was that some later copies had the title on and I was merely pointing out that my copy from the first batch (ie not a later pressing) did have the sticker on. That's all I meant!NH89.243.98.190 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My Summary Judged on the Above Posts: The first print of The Final Cut does not have any text on the cover, and the sticker does not constitute as cover art. -Vincetti (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Concept and Analysis

The 'Concept' and the 'Analysis' sections seem to contradict each other. While the former states that the 'depressed person' narrating the album is likely to be 'Pink' from The Wall the latter claims that it might be the teacher from the same album. Would it not be safer to assume that the lyrics reflect Roger Waters’s view of world affairs and his disappointment in the post WW2 world order? Personally, I don't think that these attempts at interpreting the lyrics should feature on wikipedia as they inevitably reflect the author's personal opinion and will never be factually accurate (unless of course written by Roger Waters himself). Let's not forget that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia...(HighburyVanguard 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Although it's thoughtfully written, I have to say that I disagree with the several aspects of the interpretation of the album's "story,", which opens with this:

One portrays Waters' view on world affairs at the time (Tracks 1, 5, 7-9, 12, 13 of the 2004 reissue). Much of this was formed by the Falklands War, condemning among others Margaret Thatcher, Ian Paisley, Ronald Reagan, Leonid Brezhnev and Menachem Begin. The name Fletcher in "The Fletcher Memorial Home" is in honour and remembrance of his father (to whom the whole album is dedicated in the credits), who was killed in action at Anzio during World War II. The album also espouses his views of an ideal world, ending the album with a nuclear holocaust he feared might happen in the real world.

In the original album (before the insertion of "When the Tigers Broke Free"), issued on vinyl, Side One consisted of the tracks up to "Paranoid Eyes", and Side Two began with "Get Your Filthy Hands...". It was clear the first side was presenting the POV of a bitter, alienated WWII veteran living in modern era (1980s), and Side Two representing the next generation, quite possible the son of the veteran in Side One, possibly the "Pink" of The Wall, but most obviously a character that is a stand in for Waters himself -- the bitter post-war generation. (In fact, one of the things I love about this album is the notion that psychological damage of war echoes down through the generations.)

Also, the author of the passage quoted above mentions an "ideal world" -- I assume this to be a reference to the Gunner's Dream.... This is very clearly not the POV of a modern generation, but the WWII generation: "a place to sleep/enough to eat" etc (Google for whole passage, I'm not going to quote at length). Those lines are clearly in reference to a soldier dying in WWII (the ideal world of the "post-war dream"), and is almost certainly a deliberate homage to the poem "Flanders Field."

Now if we can only find some bonehead music magazine writer who's bothered to write about the album intelligently, we can have our references and a NPOV article.... StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Closest thing to a love song?

Isn't Bike a lovesong?

I cannot speak for that song, personally, since The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is one of the few Pink Floyd albums I do not own. However, the clause in question ("The title track is arguably the most personal Pink Floyd song ever written and the closest thing to a love song in their catalogue") is definitely false. Both "Pigs on the Wing" songs from Animals are love songs. I am going to make the wording here more accurate. 72.82.60.7 05:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I know the whole Pink Floyd canon up to The Final Cut pretty damn well. It's kind of hard to characterize Bike, or any songs of the Early Pink Floyd catalogue, as "love songs." It's more about being surreal than a particular expression of a love, IMO. I agree with the above writer, however, that "Pigs On the Wing" are love songs, of a sort, especially Part II. One could also argue that some of the songs on The Wall are *sort of* love songs -- or at least songs addressing disappointment, lust, anger, or obsession in romantic love. ("Oooh Babe, I need you... to beat to a pulp on a Saturday night...."(!) ) That's as close as these guys get to writing a love song! StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Meddle is the place to find Pink Floyd love songs. "A Pillow of Winds", "San Tropez", and "Echoes" all have elements of romance. "If" from Atom Heart Mother could be seen as a love song, too.

--63.25.227.132 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this entire post is off-topic as it doesn't relate to The Final Cut; but I would consider Summer '68 as a love song even though it's about Richard Wright and a Roadie.-Vincetti (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a "socialist" critique

Although one might make the argument that Waters' political critique certainly comes from left of center, and his named targets in Fletcher Memorial Home are right wing conservative leaders of the early 1980s (Thatcher, Reagan, Begin, Haig et. al), I can't see how it's defensible to characterize the album as a *socialist* critique. Socialism is a political philosophy espousing various degrees of state control over the economy, and in stronger forms, over the governance of ordinary life. However, the economic critiques, such as they are, in The Final Cut, are primarily criticisms of the Thatcher government selling off the shipping industry and coal industry to the Japanese. The general political stance of the entire album does not particularly embrace a philosophy (even the utopia described in The Gunner's Dream only describes a world without violence and with enough food and shelter for everyone, and the point of view is that of a dying World War II soldier, so it's hard to call this a utopia of any political flavor). Rather, it is primarily a critique of war in general, of state-sponsored violence that damages economies, families and personalities. The most trenchant insight of the album, I think, is that the effects of war echo down the generations -- as in Waters' bitter loss of his father in WWII.

All of this to say -- I removed the phrase "socialist" from the section that characterized it as a "socialist" critique. StrangeAttractor (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing references where none exist.

The following looks like it was written by the kind of person who analyzes Division Bell lyrics looking for a "message":

During the end of "The Fletcher Memorial Home", the main character's newspaper includes the headline "Your Son's Head in a Box". This is most likely a reference to "Run Like Hell" from Pink Floyd's previous album, The Wall.

Really? I would have thought it was more of a reference to the fact that war (the central theme of the album? remember?) can result in your son (or daughter, nowadays) being shipped home dead in a box.
"Run Like Hell" is about paranoia, and has nothing to do with anything on The Final Cut. You could also interpret "RLH" as being about the fearful state of living in a fascist dictatorship, which is closer to the themes of TFC, but it's still not a reference.
Why do some people need to believe that every detail about Pink Floyd is inter-related and forms a grand, magnificent, wholistic something or other? (Of course, it doesn't help that David Gilmour really does seem incapable of writing a Pink Floyd lyric that isn't, at least somewhat, a dig at Roger Waters . . . .)
--63.25.227.132 (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it could be a deliberate reference to the lyric of 'Run Like Hell' since Waters has always liked referencing other Floyd lyrics/musical motifs/sound effects in his work. In some cases, this may be intended to convey some meaningful point to the listener, but in this case, even if the reference is intentional, I can't see there being any deeper meaning to it, it's just playfully referencing a previous work. And in any case, it's just as likely that Waters simply used a similar phrase twice in his work without intending any referencing to other work, something that you'd expect a songwriter to do from time to time, the connection to 'Run Like Hell' may never even have occurred to him until afterwards. Regardless, it sounds like 'original research', in this case a contributer including his own speculations. Even if they are right, it's not a particularly notable or significant point, so feel free to remove it from the article if you like, or else attache a 'citation needed' tag to it to see if there is any actual source for the speculation.

As for Floyd's work being interconnected, well there is obviously some degree of deliberate interconnection with some of the albums made with Waters as I think he'd maintain himself, but obsessive fans are probably prone to exgaggerate and look for deeper, mysterious hidden meanings. I'm sceptical though that the subsequent Gilmour-led albums have much in the way of interconnected themes, but Gilmour seems to revel in encouraging fans to look for hidden meanings when he knows fully well that almost always they aren't there (the Publius Enigma is one example, not sure how much if anything Gilmour had to do it with originating that, but I'm sure he enjoyed it all). He seems to enjoy all the speculation about which of the songs may or may not be about Roger Waters. With regard to most of his songs being digs at Waters, some of them probably are in part (maybe 'Sorrow' and 'A Great Day for Freedom', certainly 'Poles Apart'), but I know Gilmour wrote all of the lyric for 'One Slip' and I can't see how that could be construed as an attack on Waters, unless it's Gilmour's playful way of revealing that Waters fathered a bunch of illegitimate children while away on tour with the band, rather like Mick Jagger, though I doubt it somehow, Roger dosen't seem the type. MarkB79 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Vocals on Not Now John

I just removed a recent addition suggesting that Waters has claimed that he sings vocal parts attributed to Gilmour on 'Not Now John'. In the context of where it was put it the article, it implies that Gilmour does not sing at all on this song and hence the whole album features vocals by Waters only. I have no idea if Waters has claimed that he sings the whole of 'Not Now John' but if he has he is wrong and misremembering what actually happened. The majority of the vocal parts attrubuted to Gilmour (i.e. the verses) clearly are actually Gilmour and they are credited as such by reputable sources. It is the last verse which Waters sings while trying to mimick Gilmour's vocal style, which I presume is what Waters has referred to (or possibly misremembered, depending on what exactly he has said). You can hear its not Gilmour on this last verse although Waters' attempts at sounding like him do disguise his own voice and makes it difficult for the most part to recognise it as him. The point is that the way it was put in the article suggests that Waters sings the whole song and Gilmour does not sing at all, which is patently false, even if Waters has claimed it. MarkB79 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In any event, the edit was not sourced, so I agree with its removal. Now if it WAS sourced to a review by Waters, it would have to stay, because WP:V states "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (see the link for explanation). The only way to counter that is to provide another source which counters his claim (with a good explanation), and in that case it would be best to include both quotes in the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps but even if it is sourced and stays in the article I don’t think it should be placed where it was (in the intro). The intro briefly mentions that Gilmour only sings one song on the album to highlight Waters’ domination of the work, putting a load of detail in the intro about how Waters might have once disputed that Gilmour sings this one song and how others say otherwise (especially when Waters would clearly be wrong) probably isn’t necessary or appropriate in the intro, it would be better placed further down the page under ‘Recording’ or wherever. If a source stating that Gilmour sings on the track is needed, the Floyd Encyclopaedia by Vernon Fitch could be used. Incidentally I very much doubt that Waters has ever actually disputed that Gilmour sings this song – he would not only have to misremember the events, he also couldn’t have listened to the song in years because with a quick listen he could tell for himself that Gilmour is singing the first few verses on the track, and I imagine Waters must listen to this album at least once in a while. I think it’s likely that Waters has probably said in an interview something along the lines of “on ‘Not Now John’, I remember singing vocal parts and trying to sound like Gilmour” without being more specific and this has been misinterpreted by the contributor as meaning all the vocals attributed to Gilmour rather than just the last verse. If that turns out to be the case, I don’t think we should be putting words in Waters’ mouth and using an interview to suggest that he disputes that Gilmour sings on the track at all if he doesn’t actually say that, we should only do that if he states that specifically. MarkB79 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Until someone demonstrates the interview actually exists, it's all Waters under the bridge. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicely put!NH78.147.103.246 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Singles

I have the 7" singles of "When The Tigers broke Free" and "Not Now John". Both are the UK versions bought at their times of release and "Tigers" with the gatefold sleeve says: "Taken from the album THE FINAL CUT" on the rear of the sleeve. In the article it says "forthcoming" and says this was on the labels. Is the author just guessing? Same with "Not Now John", there are no lyrics on the cover of mine.NH89.240.225.183 (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the bit about the Tigers single, I got the info from Andy Mabbett's book. Actually having checked the book you're correct that the phrase 'forthcoming' isn't there, for some reason I must have thought it was, but he does claim the text is on the labels of the single, not the sleeve. I have no idea whether he is wrong or whether there were different editions issued. In any case, feel free to change it. I don't know about lyrics on the sleeve of Not Now John, I don't know who put that in the article. Incidentally, Mabbett is a contributer to Wikipedia so if he was here you could have asked him but unfortunately I believe he's banned until next month. MarkB79 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Yes it is a shame that Andy Mabbett's not been able to contribute for some time. I don't know the ins and outs of what happened as it was before I started contributing, but though I've never met him, I have had contact with Andy (via letters and phone) in the past when he used to edit "The Amazing Pudding". I liked TAP and had a subscription with them which means I have a complete set! I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say about different editions of Floyd releases and this is where I may be being very pedantic! I'm really just trying to clear up any ambiguities and I have to say that I was totally convinced that I had seen "From the forthcoming album: 'The Final Cut'", too until I checked the "Tigers" sleeve! As for stickers on PF albums we could probably start a whole new section!! Cheers! NH78.147.101.158 (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't actually spoken to Andy Mabbett on here but I believe he was banned for some kind of conflict with another user, I don't think it was over a Pink Floyd article however. Whatever happened, he got the blame, possibly unfairly by the look of it. I have never actually seen a copy of 'The Amazing Pudding' although I believe it was an excellent fanzine, I imagine a full set would be worth quite a lot. As for Floyd vinyl albums and stickers and so on, I've either lent or had my hands on a vinyl copy of every Floyd album bar Momentary and Division Bell but the only one I actually own on original vinyl is Dark Side (which come to think of it, I think that does have a sticker on the front), so I'm far from a expert on the subject. I do think I remember reading somewhere that the phrase 'forthcoming' was on that single but I'm not sure, it's not in Andy's book. I have seen a copy of 'Not Now John' but I can't remember if any lyrics were on the sleeve. You're quite right in any case, there are different original editions of some Floyd records, especially post-Waters singles I think.

I haven't actually yet sourced any of my contributions to this article which is of course not strictly what you are supposed to do on here but I've been meaning to sit down and do it for a while. Hopefully I'll get round to adding all the sources in the next few weeks. MarkB79 (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've reworded a quite a bit of the article, and removed some redundant sections. I've also shortened a lot of unnecessarily long statements. I've also replaced the cover image. The album cover has a black background, but the background is quite visibly black fabric, and on the previous image it had either been photoshopped into one solid color, or it was from a later edition of the album. Friginator (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

no reference

A digitally remastered CD was released in 1994 in Europe on EMI and in 1997 for the rest of the world.^{[citation needed]}

This appears to be this release, but I can't as yet find a reliable source, so I'm placing it here. Parrot of Doom 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This was in reference to the title of one of the songs scheduled for inclusion and also to the album's purpose as a film soundtrack. Additionally it was the last addition to the long-running The Wall multimedia project.^{[citation needed]} ......... however neither song ultimately ended up being included due to Waters' decision to radically change the content and purpose of the project.^{[citation needed]} Parrot of Doom 09:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes on 4 October

This article is currently at GAN. Unsourced additions, that is, any information added which is likely to be contested, but does not carry an inline citation, will be deleted. I make no apologies for this, as I consider it close to vandalism.

Please also note that once this and Pink Floyd are through the GA process, I will likely nominate a Pink Floyd Featured Topic. Readers should expect some degree of consistency across articles in that topic, and since nobody has really had an issue with the structure of DSotM, WYWH, Meddle, or other articles, I do not see why anyone would think that a completely different structure on The Final Cut would be an issue.

I would appreciate comment on this, I don't want it to appear as though I 'own' this article, but the recent changes frankly made it look a mess. Parrot of Doom 17:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Graham.Graham Colm ^Talk 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There weren't any unsourced additions that I added to the article. It was simply clearing things up and reorganizing. The one thing that I added to the page (A Roger Waters quote) was sourced. There's no reason to revert it, so I'm going to add it back. Friginator (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PoD here on the arrangement of sections. They are more consistent with the other articles that have been rewritten and made into featured articles. I have no comment on the addition of text, with exception to "The album that would eventually become," which should be removed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "The album that would eventually become" is a bit awkward sounding. However, there needs to be some statement to that effect at the beginning. We need to make it clear that the album didn't start out as "The Final Cut." And regardless of the other articles, "Background" "Recording" and "Release" should really be in sequence. The article needs to read in a linear fashion (With "Legacy" towards the bottom, for example). Friginator (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Very few albums originate as a single concept that becomes an album. Moreover they are a group of independent songs that are eventually linked together by a concept. Each song has a unique history that should be discussed, as well as the album itself. In that should be mention of how the album came to be. Its very awkward to start out with that, and better to bring it up by mentioning why it was not "The Final Cut" to begin with. Thats my opinion at least. The concept section fits better alongside the background section, as the concept is coined before recording and release. I'm neutral on the placement of the legacy section. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you tell me, what source covers this?

"Songs which had been re-recorded for the film, included "Mother", "Bring the Boys Back Home" and "Outside the Wall". Also featured were two songs included in the film but not on the original album ("When the Tigers Broke Free" and "What Shall We Do Now?"). Roger Waters also planned to record a small amount of 'new' material for inclusion on the album which would further flesh out The Wall narrative"

and what makes this a reliable source, in relation to this quote:

I really liked that image of Margaret Thatcher all full of union jacks and piss and vinegar, resurrecting her political career, which was shot completely. It was my father that record, and I think it was the most personal record I've made. I started to come to grips with my obligation to him, and maybe I unburdened some of that. 'The dark stain spread between their shoulder blades ... and when the fight was over we spent what they had made, but in the bottom of our hearts we felt the final cut.' I love that lyric because it expresses my sadness that the promise of the post war dream did not materialize. The failure of socialism in some senses. Though I'm not a subscriber to the notion that the socialist ideal has died and gone to heaven, because some of it has been absorbed into our great market driven Western Civilization, massing as the forces are to drive it out. I mean Reagan had a good go at killing the idea of supporting one another. So yeah, it's kind of an important record to me."<ref>[http://www.pink-floyd.org/artint/cdnow.htm]</ref>

Why do you want 5 paragraphs in the packaging section? This isn't the first time you've done something like this Friginator, in fact on the last occasion you deleted swathes of fully referenced text, and restored a previous version which was, frankly, a mess. When I called you up on that here, you didn't respond. I am restoring the version you have just reverted. Parrot of Doom 21:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The songs mentioned were re-recorded for the Wall film. That's sourced. Please don't accuse me of doing things I clearly haven't done. Just calm down. Articles are going to be edited, even if you feel the need to control every aspect of the process. There's nothing wrong with what I'm adding, so please understand that you do not own this article, and that simply calling oher users' edits "unsourced" doesn't make it true. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is it sourced? Pages 294-295 of Blake (2008) do not mention your additions. Page 264 of Mason (2005) does not. Neither does the Billboard reference, which predates the release of the album and cannot therefore be considered reliable. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your additions are sourced.

So, please demonstrate where your additions are sourced. And please tell me what makes <ref>[http://www.pink-floyd.org/artint/cdnow.htm]</ref> a reliable source? Parrot of Doom 21:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The unreleased song info is in the article cited entitieled, "Pink Floyd's Next Album Will Have 'Wall' Tie-In." It's spelled out perfectly there. Please quit edit warring over this. Friginator (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read it twice. The article mentions nothing about which songs would be used. The version, as I had edited it, reflected this by generalising where specific titles were not known. So, where did you get those song titles from, and what makes <ref>[http://www.pink-floyd.org/artint/cdnow.htm]</ref> a reliable source? And while I'm at it, why have you replaced prose with a bulleted list, something that is largely frowned upon on Wikipedia? Parrot of Doom 21:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Those were the songs that were re-recorded. It's not as if they're random selections. Only a few songs were re-recorded, and those are pretty much all of them. And your problem with making the list bulleted is? It's a section listing the different reissues. Making it bulleted is cleaner and more accessible. And the CDNOW.com interview isn't on CDNOW anymore (as the site has completely changed), but it's recorded on the page given. Parts of it can be seen on different websites. Greg Kot is a notable music critic. I fail to see what your problem with the source is. Friginator (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply stating that they were rerecorded isn't good enough. I want to be able to read as such, from a reliable source. That's what I'm asking for, but you're not supplying it. The Billboard article was published about six months before the album was released - how do you know that in those six months, the structure and content of the album wasn't changed significantly?

You might think a bulleted list is 'cleaner', but the MOS guidelines disagree with you, and so would anyone at FAC, which is where this article may one day be, if I get the time. I don't know what CDNOW.com is, I don't know for certain that it ever published the interview (although you should try looking at archive.org), I don't know if Greg Kot wrote it, and I don't know what makes the current source reliable.

Just about every Pink Floyd album since Meddle has begun with a concept, and has then proceeded to recording. This is the format used at The Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album), and nobody, not one person, commented on the article structure on either of the FACs for those articles. I use that as my benchmark for this article. Parrot of Doom 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The bulleted list is completely appropriate per the Manual of Style. If it wasn't I wouldn't have changed it. It's listing a sequence of separate items chronologically. That's covered in the Manual of Syle, so I have no idea what your problem is with it. And what's your point about the Billboard article being published six months ahead of time? Clearly the album changed since then. So I don't understand what your point is there. Friginator (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered most of my questions. Where does the Billboard source mention those songs? Why should I trust an article that was published about six months before the release of the album? What makes <ref>[http://www.pink-floyd.org/artint/cdnow.htm]</ref> a reliable source? Why have you ignored the part of the MOS that says "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs"?

And also, why have you split this paragraph:

"With the onset of the Falklands Conflict however, Waters changed direction and began writing new material, for what was to be the final Pink Floyd album featuring Waters and Gilmour. A socialist at heart, Waters saw Margaret Thatcher's response to the invasion of the islands as jingoistic and unnecessary, and he dedicated the new album—then provisionally titled Requiem for a Post-War Dream—to his dead father. Immediately there were arguments between Waters and Gilmour. "Your Possible Pasts", "One of the Few", "The Final Cut", and "The Hero's Return" were pieces of music from The Wall which had initially been set aside for Spare Bricks. Pink Floyd had often re-used older material in their work, but on this occasion Gilmour felt that these songs were not good enough for a new album. He wanted to write new material, but Waters was doubtful as Gilmour had contributed little to the band's lyrical repertoire over the previous few years.[7]"

...and removed "for what was to be the final Pink Floyd album featuring Waters and Gilmour. A socialist at heart,"? Why have you deleted this sourced text? Why have you not copied the citation that was used, to your edited version, which is now uncited? Basically, why are you deleting sourced text, inserted unsourced text, inserting text based on unreliable sources, and generally turning what was a reasonable article into a mess? Parrot of Doom 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are not appropriate per the mos when they can be replaced by prose. I would like to see the essay/policy/guideline that you get that notion from. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. You're welcome. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I know about that one... I meant the one that says that a list is more appropriate, seeing as the first item on that page reads "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The order in which the reissues came out is without question important to the section, so that's covered by the MOS. It also reads easier, and helps the reader keep the different versions straight. It's much more effective than prose in this case. Obviously bulleted lists are discouraged under the MOS, but this one falls under several of the exceptions outlined there. Friginator (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree totally. The listing format makes this section stand out like a sore thumb in an article that is predominantly straight prose. The bulleted list is unnecessary and is aesthetically jarring. In this instance I believe that MOS is correct. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, MOS covers this. The most important thing is to make the article as effective as possible when it comes to providing information. The reissue section was basically just a list of examples in prose form, which doesn't work as well. Listing examples in a straightforward chronological order is the best way to present this particular set of facts. Friginator (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that you still have not answered my questions about sourcing, and it appears that you're quite outnumbered when it comes to support of this list style. I have no issues with your edits to the grammar, or wording of the article - all that is fine with me - but the introduction of unsourced text and unreliable sources must go, and by consensus here the structure of the article should remain as it was. Parrot of Doom 08:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Seeing as this album is very clearly the primary use of 'The Final Cut', should it not exist as The Final Cut, with the disambiguation page at The Final Cut (disambiguation)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Per WP:D, Disambiguation pages should usually be used if the phrase has three or more notable uses. Considering how many uses the phrase has (the disambiguation page includes 14 links), and considering that various major films and a popular line of software both share the title, I would keep it as it is. Friginator (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

I think it would be good to date the two quotations by Dave Gilmour given in the article, especially the second one: some readers may find weird to see him praise The Final Cut whereas the article says he found the material weak Ælfgar (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've dated the quote box, but the 'weak' assertion is undated in the source, as it isn't a direct quote. Parrot of Doom 00:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Numerous Issues

I am amazed that this is an FA. It is riddled with opinion, and outright inconsistencies. I have cleaned it up a bit, but it still needs much work.Mk5384 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't tidy it up, you made a complete pigs ear. I suggest you point out each problem you have, and we'll discuss it here. Parrot of Doom 18:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of pointing out any problems you may have, you've decided to simply revert my changes. I'm all for discussing it here. First of all, it is the 12th album. Piper At The Gates Of Dawn,A Saucer Full Of Secrets, Ummagumma, More, Atom Heart Mother, Obscured By Clouds, Meddle, Dark Side Of The Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall, The Final Cut. "When The Tigers Broke Free" was included in the film The Wall, whilst "Bring The Boys Back Home" was included in both the film and the movie. Neither song ever had anything to do with this album. The fact that "When The Tigers Broke Free" was included as a bonus track on a re-release does not mean that it was ever part of the Spare Bricks project. The fact that someone called Roger Waters a socialist in his book, does not make it factual. It would be fine to write that, "Mr. X claims in his book that Roger Waters is a socialist at heart". It is not OK to write that he is a socialist at heart just because Mr. X says that he is. As far as The Final Cut being a de facto Waters solo album, yes, I think every serious fan of The Floyd realises that. This is an encyclopedia. Just because we know something to be true doesn't mean that we can use it here. It says "Pink Floyd" on the cover. Many don't consider A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, and The Division Bell to be true Pink Floyd albums either. That doesn't make it encyclopedic.Mk5384 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See the studio albums infobox at the base of the article. Count them. It's easy, this album is considered by this project to be the tenth studio album, not the twelfth. End of discussion. If you don't like that More and Obscured by Clouds are not considered studio albums, then argue the toss at WT:ALBUM, not here.

You are incorrect on the tracks "Tigers" and "Boys". They were to have been included in Spare Bricks, as the article said - NOT this album.

Right, so now you're admitting that your edit summary "no source for socialist at heart" was incorrect. In which case you should have come to this talk page and asked, instead of deleting it. As for this being the author's opinion, Blake's book is recognised for its accuracy and quality of writing. I'm not about to doubt its author, if he says that Waters was a socialist, I'm happy with that. He wouldn't be the only one, even Richard Wright used to complain about Waters' left-leaning views early on in the band's career.

"Just because we know something to be true doesn't mean that we can use it here." - it does if its printed in multiple sources. The article didn't say that it is a de Facto solo waters album, it said that many consider it to be so. Parrot of Doom 19:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Left leaning views make someone a socialist? Where is it printed in multiple sources that many consider it to be a de facto Waters solo album?Mk5384 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Do yourself a favour. Go and research Waters' political views. As for the "de Facto" comment, I'm sick of jumping through your hoops. I've spent the last 20 minutes checking and re-checking the sources used in the article to see if anything was incorrect, and unsurprisingly I discovered that nothing was incorrect. Go to a library and read the books, as I've done. Oh and while you're at it, stop with the ownership comments - they're incorrect, rude, and completely unhelpful. Parrot of Doom 19:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you do me a favour, and not tell me what I need to do. Research? I'm quite familiar with G. Roger Waters, and his political views. Left leaning? Absolutely.Socialist? Not a chance. And what is this nonsense about jumping through hoops? Since you've spent all of this time researching this (which you for some bizarre reason, think that I have not), then please simply state whom these many that consider it to be a de facto Waters album are.Mk5384 (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough. Does a reliable source say "socialist"? If it does, we include it, and your opinions—and indeed, whether it's true—do not matter. And quit edit-warring; by my count your up to about 5RR by now. – iride scent 20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Quit telling me I'm edit warring when I have not. I fixed false information. I did not edit war at all. I do find it amusing when someone hasn't a leg on which to stand, they simply say "enough".Mk5384 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You've reverted to a version in which you're in a minority of one six times now. You're edit-warring. – iride scent 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if I'm "the minority of one", against your whopping majority of 2. It is the 12th album. If you want to use this nonsense that it's the tenth, because More, and Obscured By Clouds are soundtracks, then it would be the ninth, as The Wall is a soundtrack.Mk5384 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

May I just point out that the unofficial (and generally accepted) differences between 'studio album' and 'soundtrack album' is that a studio album is deemed to be one where the band come together in a studio specifically to record an album for their own release under their own name. Whereas a soundtrack album is one where the band come together in a studio, sometimes along with others, to record music specifically for a film soundtrack. The fact the music may be later released under the band's name as a film's soundtrack/tie-in is immaterial to the Wikipedia categorisation. It is not simply about where the album was recorded, it is more correctly delineated by why the album was recorded. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

12th Album

As a matter of wearing a belt and suspenders, I took this up at WP:ALBUM as requested. Whilst we can debate certain things here, please let's not have any more of this nonsense about 2 of their studio albums not being studio albums.Mk5384 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Hero's Return, Part 2

If there's going to be insistence on including the single of "When the Tigers Broke Free", and "Bring the Boys Back Home", then we should include the single "Not Now John", which contained the song "The Hero's Return, Part 2", on the B-side.Mk5384 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I noticed my copyedit being swept away in the edit war that was going on. Can I remind all participants to bring their points here and wait for consensus before enacting them please. When reverting, try and only revert out the edits you actually disagree with rather than making blind reverts, please. Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead of "all participants", why not directly adress the person who "swept it away"? I removed nothing of yours, and left a detailed summary for each edit that I made.Mk5384 (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the article history and it looked as if it was you against two others. I don't see the point in personalizing this; can all of us just respect each other's changes and proposed changes? In that spirit, does anyone have a problem with the changes I made? --John (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't. I do, however, have a bit of a problem with being grouped in with the person who removed your edit.Mk5384 (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that we've cleared that up, can you explain what changes you want to make and why, as briefly as possibly? Thanks --John (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The changes I have proposed can be found above, under the heading "Corrections".Mk5384 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Falklands War/ Conflict

"War" seems much more apposite to me; "conflict" seemed (even back then when you used to hear it) like a euphemism, something that seems counter to Waters' intentions, as well as Wikipedia's. --John (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"War", and "conflict" seem to be used interchangeably with this event. If you feel that "war" is more precise, that's fine by me.Mk5384 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The naming issue has been discussed to death on the FW article over the years; for example here. It seems to me that this article should follow the outcome of this consensus on naming. --John (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted, and changed.Mk5384 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fletcher Memorial Home

I think it's a big leap to infer through this work of fiction that Waters himself had the "fantasy" of murdering Ronald Reagan, Alexander Haig, Margaret Thatcher, et al.Mk5384 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have, as such, changed "his" fantasy, to "the" fantasy.Mk5384 (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

OR

The statement that "none of the songs have been performed by Pink Floyd, but some have been performed by Roger Waters on his solo tours", is not, in my opinion, original research. A briefly proposed Pink Floyd tour in support of this album was scrapped soon after it was conceived, and Pink Floyd, as it was known, ceased to exist. The two following "Pink Floyd" tours certainly contained no material from this album. Roger Waters has performed a number of these songs in concert, and that fact is easily verifiable. In fact, "Get Your Filthy Hands Off My Desert", and "Southampton Dock" both appear on Waters' album, and DVD, In The Flesh - Live.Mk5384 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely open to persuasion on this. My reasoning was that we seldom report a negative unless it is well-sourced. --John (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384's statement is true, but I can't see it in the body, and it therefore shouldn't (yet) be in the lead. I don't know when this was added but its probably my oversight while heading for FAC, and I'll resolve it shortly. Parrot of Doom 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember Pink Floyd performing The Gunner's Dream following Roger Waters' departure. Am I mistaken? It doesn't appear on either of the two live albunms, Delicate Sound of Thunder and P·U·L·S·E, but are we sure it wasn't performed at some point? Friginator (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not performed. As I have said, the tour for this album was cancelled before it was even announced. As far as post Waters Floyd performing "The Gunner's Dream", or any other song from this album, you would have sooner seen Waters performing "Blue Light" at one of his concerts. Gilmour attempted to distance himself from this album whilst Waters was still with Pink Floyd.Mk5384 (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You see, this is the problem. It is inherently very difficult to report a negative without running afoul of NPOV, V etc. I'd say claims like this need to be reliably sourced even more stringently than other things. --John (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Set lists for A Momentary Lapse Of Reason Tour, and The Division Bell Tour, can be found right here, in this encyclopaedia. The same goes for set lists for Waters' solo tours. The fact is, that, of the 14 Pink Floyd albums, this is the only one of which not a single song has been performed live by any version of the band. I think that that is notable. Roger Waters, both a member of Pink Floyd, and the sole composer of these songs, has performed them live. I believe that this is notable, as well. Please correct me if I am wrong.Mk5384 (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Using the set lists (disregarding for the moment how well-sourced they are) in this way would be a classic example of original research. To say this, we would need to find a reliable source which commented on the matter. --John (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't cite other Wikipedia articles as basis for your claims. Plus, neither of those set lists are sourced in any way, and even so, a set list still isn't definitive proof that a song was or wasn't performed. Friginator (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "citing" the articles here. I was merely stating that they may be helpful in resolving this. My main concern is assessing whether we are in agreement that this merits inclusion. If it's a cite issue, then, yes, I agree that we need a source outside of Wikipedia. Are we in agreement that, if properly cited, Waters' performances of these songs, and Pink Floyd's lack thereof, merit inclusion?Mk5384 (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. --John (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your cite concerns. But if it's properly cited, what, may I ask, is your objection to including it? Just above, you state, "To say this, we would need to find a reliable source that commented on the matter".Mk5384 (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "cited properly". I would require multiple third party reputable sources in order to include the material. If, as I suspect, what you mean is a well-referenced article on a set list or two, and the absence of material from this album thereon, and then synthesizing this onto the article, this wouldn't be ok. Pardon me if I am wrong. --John (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that demanding multiple sources is a bit much. Here's what I know. The book A Saucer Full Of Secrets discusses the fact that no version of Pink Floyd has ever performed a song from this album. I'll see if I can find it amongst the ubiquitous flotsam and jetsam of my abode, and cite the page(s). As far as Waters' performances of the songs, as I have stated, 2 of them are on his album & DVD. Assuming that we can confirm that what I have said about the book is true, would you find this acceptable?Mk5384 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that we "fundamentally disagree" here. (Although, perhaps we do, which, as you said, is OK.) I do seem to be misunderstanding something. Your insistence on this being well sourced is perfectly reasonable. Other than that, is there a problem that I am overlooking?Mk5384 (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Avoid Weasel Words

The statement about The Final Cut being regarded as a de facto Waters solo album was tagged (not by me), with a cite needed. The tag was removed, whilst the sentence was simply reworded without providing the requested cite. "Regarded by some", does not belong here. By whom? As I have stated, it is, in fact, "almost a de facto Waters solo album". The fact that I (or any other editors) know something to be true, does not meet the criteria for inclusion here. To keep that sentence, we need a reliable source, stating the fact that "some" regard it this way, and preferably, exactly whom "some" refers to. And the fact is, that there very well may be a source for this. I'm not questioning the truth of the statement. It just needs to be sourced.Mk5384 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of cites for this lower down in the article. I probably agree with you that we do not need this in the lede though. --John (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence lower in the article is worded differently. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass here. I truly believe that the difference in wording here is of importance. "Sometimes regarded", as in on occasion, and "regarded by some", as those who feel this way about the album in full. I think the way it's worded, and cited, in the lower portion of the article is clear and concise. I didn't remove it originally, nor did I propose that it be changed.Mk5384 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you're not and indeed you make some good points (though I think we fundamentally disagree on the point above this one, which is ok). On both these issues we have had our say on I would like to see some more talk page participation from others and we should all respect whatever consensus is reached. In the big scale of things it doesn't matter if bits of this article seem suboptimal to one or two editors for a few days; there are other things to look at meantime. --John (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely.Mk5384 (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

Per the discussion on this page, I have removed the 2 statements about it being a "rock opera". I have, as a compromise, left the statement about it being " a concept album with rock opera elements". If it is to be referred to as a "rock opera", please cite one reliable source that calls The Final Cut a rock opera. There are other things need to be changed, but I will discuss them here first, as requested. What proof is there that the protaganist suffers from post traumatic stress disorder? Yes, he was fucked up by his experiences in war. However, making a specific diagnosis of PTSD for a fictional character seems to be a bit of a leap. Also, please clarify what proof there is that the protaganist here is the same character as the school teacher in The Wall. Also the bit about "Your Possible Pasts", "One Of the Few", "The Final Cut", and "The Hero's Return" reads, "several pieces from The Wall"... At the very least, the wording needs to be changed, as none of these songs appear in the movie, or on the album. (Mk5384 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The wording of that sentence now reads very well. As far as a tour in support of this album, it was, in fact, briefly considered. This info can be found in the book A Saucer Full Of Secrets. I'm not going to change it until I dig up the book to get a page cite. However, if anyone has a copy at hand, and wishes to review this, by all means, please do.Mk5384 (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

An article for each track?

Does an article like One of the Few really meet our notability guidelines? I'm inclining to "No" on this but am open to being convinced otherwise. --John (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that should probably be taken up on that article's talk page, rather than here.Mk5384 (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

All of Pink Floyd's songs have their own articles, and many of them need a lot of work to meet guidlines. Notability in this area seems pretty arbitrary, as the Beatles songs get the same treatment, whereas the Who don't, etc. One of the Few has been covered by a notable band, Anathema, and ties in closely with the story of the Wall. Opening a deletion discussion doesn't seem out of the question for a lot of Pink Floyd song stubs. Friginator (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I redirected the majority of the song articles to the album, per WP:NSONG. --John (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that was a bit hasty.Mk5384 (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd#Pink Floyd songs. --John (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the articles should be returned, whilst under discussion.Mk5384 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The Division Bell as Concept album

Can anyone provide a WP:RS that refers to The Division Bell as a concept album? — GabeMc (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Interview

I don't believe that this is appropriate, for two reasons. The first, obviously it's sourced from a fansite and they tend to be frowned upon. The second, that fansite gives no idea as to where the interview was conducted, or who for. The transcript may be a copyright violation. Parrot of Doom 10:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The interview is from Q Magazine, June 1987. The interview can be found here, here, and here, not including the source cited. Those are all fansites, and despite being frowned upon, there's no policy against using them. Also, the reason they're frowned upon is because of a possible conflict of interest pertaining to the source material. In this case that's irrelevant, since they're just quoting an interview. Still, if anyone could track down that magazine and verify it, that would help. Friginator (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather just link to the specific edition of the magazine, for all we know the versions linked above may contain errors (they will certainly have been copied from oneanother). I can't remember the guideline but I'm reasonably certain that linking to copyright violations is frowned upon. Parrot of Doom 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

by roger waters

The backside of of every copy of this album I have ever seen list the title as follows (all in lower-case): the final cut: a requiem for the post war dream by roger waters." I think is important to emphasize the "by roger waters" aspect as it signifies his complete control of Pink Floyd at this time. It is, in fact, a Roger Waters album played by Pink Floyd. See for example (from Amazon): http://www.amazon.com/The-Final-Cut-Pink-Floyd/dp/B004ZN9YNC. I don't think the article should say "occasionally subtitled." It should just say subtitled: "a requiem for the post war dream by roger waters." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaperBill (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point but the article already places much emphasis on Waters' creative input to this album. Parrot of Doom 22:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)