Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 8

Mason's book, Inside Out Proper Citation date
This work was first copywrited in the UK in 2004, but was first published in the US in 2005, it's my understanding that we use the earliest publication date for citations not the copywrite date. GabeMc (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was first published in the UK in 2004, but as PoD reminded me with his recent reversion, the citation's page number sin this article are based on the 2005 edition. A US publication date for a British book is totally irrelevant and just demonstrates another example of the Fortress America mentality. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2005 is the year in which the edition that I use was published. I believe its best therefore to use that year, rather than 2004, to avoid any confusion (clearly the edition you have carries different page numbers).  I have used the origyear command in the bibliography section to clarify this. Parrot of Doom 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right on, the first publisher was Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 7th October 2004 in the UK, question, since my copy is the 10th edition, from Chronicle Books (US), how can I assure consistent page citations? GabeMc (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as the Fortress America mentality, no need to insult 310,000,000 people, we are just trying to get it right. Also, you should research Britain's legacy of imperialism, American's cannot hold a candle to it. GabeMc (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The traitorous actions of the colonials are no doubt an argument for the time when her Majesty retakes our stolen domains, but if you wish to add anything from Mason's book then I'm quite happy to look at my copy and cite it from there, if that helps. Parrot of Doom 00:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)There's always a need to insult those specific 310m people, at least when they are grouped together anyway. And just to rub it in, our "imperialism" and "fortress America" are two totally opposite things. We know there's a world outside the UK, we conquered/discovered most of it. As for your copy and citations from it, just make sure that you list the edition you are quoting from in the Citation template, or if using the Harvnb template the year should be good enough. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to it's own Wiki page there was the first edition in 2004, then there were two editions released in 2005, the one I have and one with a Live 8 update, then there was one in 2008 with a Wright update. That makes 4 editions with 3 different years to go by, could muck up the references list fast. Which one is preferred? GabeMc (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Fred, if it wasn't for the United States you would still be rude, insulting and bossy, only in German, and without The Beatles or Pink Floyd. GabeMc (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things, don't get me started on that, it could get ugly quite quickly and secondly, I have no problem with the possibility of speaking German, in my view it's far preferable to Punjabi. PS better late than never eh? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd sold most of their albums in the US BTW, and Dark Side peaked at #2 and The Wall at #3 in the UK. In the US they were #1 albums and rank as #4 (The Wall, amazing for a double), and #22 (Dark Side) top selling albums in the US of all time. GabeMc (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bob Klose
Klose should go from the intro, he was in a band called the Tea Set but he was never in a band called Pink Floyd, according to Mason, the name came in autumn 1965(Mason p30), Bob left the previous summer(Mason p27). GabeMc (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with this. Parrot of Doom 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed Klose from the lead.

No Citations in Intro
Is it just me, or is this the only Wiki page that does not cite any references in the intro? I always thought you cite a reference when it is first used. GabeMc (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to cite anything in a lead, so long as the text it summarises is adequately cited within the body of the article. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It def looks better without citation clutter, but sometimes peeps will delete an uncited comment from a lead and not bother to find it cited below, which can be difficult in a rather large document. But in principle, I agree with keeping the lead clean. GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Whitesnake Reference
Suggestion for an edit, in reference to Whitesnake keeping Momentary Lapse from reaching the top spot: As writen it would appear that their album is titled "1987", as opposed as being a self-titled album that came out in 1987. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.48.173 (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong but in the UK and Europe that album was entitled 1987? Parrot of Doom 07:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct you are. That's a good example of why suggest edits before making them!  The sentence refers to the US and UK charts but then only mentions the UK album title.  Since PK is a band from the UK I would suppose the inclination would be to only name Whitesnake's album title from this region.  Thanks.  joe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.48.173 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick question
"The Sun printed a story about Waters, who it claimed had paid an artist to create 150 toilet rolls with Gilmour's face on every sheet. Waters later rubbished this story, but it serves to illustrate how deeply divided the two parties had now become."

This strikes me as an odd thing to say. If Waters later rubbished the story, i.e., if the event in question - as far as anyone knows - never even happened, then doesn't this just serve to illustrate that one should be skeptical of The Sun's reporting? Or, the fact that a reputable paper would run such a story, later proven to be false, might serve to illustrate that the public perception of the band's situation was "deeply divided", but nothing more, am I right? It seems odd that a false story could illustrate anything about the parties themselves.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree--thus worded, it amounts to WP:SYN. I've removed it. PL290 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blake p353 - "Waters, meanwhile, quashed the rumour that he had had 150 rolls of toilet paper produced with Gilmour's face on them, while conceding that he thought it a good idea. There was a pattern to the sniping: that Waters was a poor musician; and that Gilmour and Mason lacked creativity."


 * My fault for mistakenly changing the emphasis from Water's concession to The Sun's reporting. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Question Regarding Grammar
Is it normal in British English for a reference to a group as a singular entity to still use the plural form of verbs? By American grammar standards, it would be "Pink Floyd was...". If the band was referred to by name, then the plural forms of the verb would be used. i.e. "Waters, Wright, and Mason were" However, as this is a British English page, I don't want to make sweeping edits that aren't correct. Wyrdsol (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, British English uses the plural for bands. Torchiest talk/contribs 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the confirmation. Wyrdsol (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been contemplating and divulging on this and I see that the American English term "was" and the British English "was" would fit as well. Because Pink Floyd refers to a group of people but is a single entity. If they were called Pink Floyds then I would agree. But Pink Floyd is a single entity. One band, not multiple. Granted they had multiple artists within, but the term Pink Floyd is a single entity. However I am just an American who sees this article and see in it multiple placeless where American English is applied instead of British English. They way some words are spelled, in particular. Not that I am a great speller myself. But in British English they use "ou" in a lot of words where Americans would just use "o" like color is colour. If you’re going to use one British English term you should fill the article with just using British English.

-Anonymous


 * See WP:ENGVAR. Dismas |(talk) 08:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I think you'll find the article does only use BrE ("behaviour" etc.)&mdash;any discrepancies should be fixed. See the banner at the top of this talk page. PL290 (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like for someone to clarify that. I am quite familiar with British English, and am unaware of British English using the term "were" to refer to a singularity in the past tense. This may be commonplace in British speech, but it does not seem to me to be proper Oxford English. I would likely first make this argument at WP:MOS, rather than making a change here, as a number of articles about British bands are written this way. But can anyone state, with authority, whether this is actually correct British grammar, or simply British usage?Mk5384 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo
I realise that the photo used on the page is one that shows all 5 members in the same photo. But is it really best to use a photo from the shortest lived phase of the band that took place?Mk5384 (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea photograph for me would be the gatefold of Meddle. The infobox image was once deleted, but someone restored it.  I suspect it'll be deleted again at some point. Parrot of Doom 13:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think that that would be better.Mk5384 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it'd never be allowed. Parrot of Doom 13:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not?Mk5384 (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because its owned by someone else, and its use would be viewed as a means to make the article look nice, nothing more. Parrot of Doom 18:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would still think that a free image could be found that better demonstrates Pink Floyd than one showing their extremely brief stint as a five piece.Mk5384 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect?
The article cites page 79 of the book Comfortably Numb, for a statement that I'm almost certain is incorrect. It states that, at the time of the release of Arnold Layne, the band had dropped the "the" from "The Pink Floyd", and that they did this "sometime in 1967".topped I'm fairly sure that they were called "The Pink Floyd", on the cover of this, and subsequent releases, at least through More, in 1969. I think that the band stopped calling themselves "The Pink Floyd" sound sometime in 1967, and maybe this is what the article meant to say. I'm going to look into this, but if any editor has a copy of this book handy, and could check it out sooner, I would appreciate it.Mk5384 (talk) 07:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blake says "at some point that year they seemed to lose the definite article" Parrot of Doom 07:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then. I still intend to look into this further. I own a copy of the CD More (1969), which says, "by The Pink Floyd". I realise that a CD that I own is not WP:RS, but it is certainly an impetus to do more research.Mk5384 (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blake may have implied that the band stopped using "The", but that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody else did. Parrot of Doom 09:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very possible.Mk5384 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

RS?
Someone contributed a bit about Waters and Gilmour playing a charity event here. The only coverage I can find is on sites dedicated to Pink Floyd - but the coverage is there. I formatted the ref just in case it's acceptable.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  21:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to find a source. Unfortunately the news only covers the important people that were there to play music, like Kate Moss and her tambourine. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  23:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any clarification as to whether or not they played together? They've played together on the same bill since Live 8. They just didn't play together onstage. If they did so at this event, the article should probably clarify that.Mk5384 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Dave and Roger did play together at a small charity event. Go to www.pinkfloydz.com for information on the show. They have pictures of the event. Tkd73 23:38 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes they played together. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I added "together", as such.Mk5384 (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Also Known As
I have added the names, "The Megadeaths", "Sigma 6", "The Architechtural Abdabs", and "The Abdabs" to the info box. I noticed, in the talk page archives, someone said, "Contrary to popular belief, they were never known as The Architechtural Abdabs". Yes, they were, and this name, and the others I added can be found in the book A Saucer Full of Secrets.Mk5384 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a matter of wearing a belt and suspenders, I have removed, for the time being, "The Architectural Abdabs". (Which I added.) The article that contradicts it does not meet WP:RS. However, I want to be 100% certain that I can back it up with WP:RS before I put it back.Mk5384 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added "The Screaming Abdabs", as I don't think that there are any discrepancies with that name.Mk5384 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have now returned "The Architectural Abdabs", as this name is quoted in Inside Out, by Nick Mason.Mk5384 (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Publius
Does anyone object to the change from, "As of 2010 the puzzle remains unsolved", to "The puzzle was never solved"? "As of 2010" makes it seem as though it may one day be solved. This one time frenzy has been long forgotten.Mk5384 (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It may indeed one day be solved, however. Parrot of Doom 23:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't actually buy into that, do you? As Mason said, it was a PR stunt by their record company that wound up being abandoned. I don't see how it can be solved, when the creators of the enigma didn't even bother to decide what the solution is.Mk5384 (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly buy into anything but "as of" is a better and more accurate wording than "never". Parrot of Doom 08:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But it does make it sound as though there's ongoing interest in solving it today. Does a WP:RS say it was abandoned? If so, better to state that ("remained unsolved, and was eventually abandoned" or somesuch). PL290 (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blake does indeed say that there is ongoing interest, and describes how a fan website devoted to the matter still exists (the book was published in 2008). The fact is that "as of 2010" implies nothing other than that as of 2010 the puzzle is unsolved, whereas "puzzle was never solved" is clumsy and imprecise grammar. Parrot of Doom 09:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is certainly ongoing, albeit marginal, interest. The issue is that, as Mason says, the people who created it never bothered to come up with a solution. Therefore, despite any limited amount of interest, it will never be "solved", and certainly no "prize" will ever be awarded. Maybe my proposed phrasing wasn't the best of ideas, but "remains unsolved", may give our readers the impression that there exists an as of yet unfound solution.Mk5384 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1994 Tour
The seating didnt collapse during the first night of the European leg, it collapsed the first night of the earlscourt shows. Furthermore is there any sources for the asking of Waters to join the tour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.72.141 (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the seating thing, you were entirely correct about that. Blake p367 is the citation for Waters' invitation. Parrot of Doom 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to what was said before, the tour didnt end on the 20th October 1994, that was just when the show was filmed. the final show of the tour was on the 28th of October 1994, with Douglas Adams playing a few numbers and u believe the proceeds from that show went to charity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.179.102 (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed, again, thanks (although it was actually 29 October :) ) Parrot of Doom 08:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, i always thought the gig with Adams was the last one, obviously not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.179.102 (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Associated Acts
I removed Sigma 6. Sigma 6 was an early name of what would become The Pink Floyd, and is listed under "also known as". I would also propose removing Jokers Wild. I don't see what "association" Jokers Wild has with Pink Floyd, other than the fact that a member of Pink Floyd was in the band.Mk5384 (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike that about the proposal of removing Jokers Wild. I now see that this is common at other articles.Mk5384 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Associated Acts field should contain acts which comply to the guidelines at Template:Infobox Musical artist. This makes it clear that bands with one member in common should not be listed. I would therefore second the removal of Joker's Wild and Zee. Una LagunaTalk 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea, done. Parrot of Doom 19:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Archives FAQ
As there is an archive search facility, is the Archive FAQ list redundant? Or would people not search the archives, but go ahead and ask the same questions again?  SilkTork  *YES! 00:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To which questions are you referring?Mk5384 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The archive search facility merely points to previous discussions had about certain frequently contentious topics. This is not a case, as with some articles, of issues that have already been decided, and don't merit discussion without new information. Case in point being the "Architectural Abdabs?" section.Mk5384 (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have removed that section from the FAQ, as it is misleading. It states, "Contrary to popular belief, the band was never known as 'The Architectural Abdabs". The source given is a Pink Floyd fan site, which is certainly not WP:RS. This name is mentioned in Nick Mason's book, Inside Out, which is certainly WP:RS.Mk5384 (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the search just added is an improvement over a FAQ, which, while in some ways a helpful idea, can produce problems. For instance, the entry just removed for "Architectural Abdabs" linked to Archive 1. But a search for "abdabs" finds mention in Archives 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Thus the FAQ, by introducing an extra level of filtering, may bias what is found or simply omit to keep up to date with newer discussions. I've removed the FAQ as it seems better to encourage use of the search now it's there. PL290 (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea.Mk5384 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Members/Former Members
I'm confused as to how you can list Syd Barrett and Bob Klose as "former members" and not Roger Waters or Richard Wright (who is dead, in case anyone forgot -- hard to be a member of a band when you are dead). Isn't there a better way to do this, such as listing everyone as members with dates active like at the bottom of the article? Or, could we just re-name the "members" section to something like "classic line-up", and the "former members" to "other members"? And, to anyone who wants to claim that Roger Waters is a current member because he played a one-off show with David, Richard and Nick, I would be curious to hear what Gilmour (the current band leader, if there is a current Pink Floyd to speak of) thinks about that. Given his disinterest in playing another show with Waters, I doubt he would consider that a true statement.Sodapaps (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * says "If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here, and none in the "Current_members" field". I don't really have a view on the matter. Parrot of Doom 08:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It also states that in exceptional cases like the Beatles (I would classify Pink Floyd as exceptional), members at the time of dissolution could be listed with consensus from the community. That would exclude Roger Waters in my opinion, as the last time Pink Floyd was active was during and following the release of The Division Bell. I don't count the G8 concert as active. Personally, I think it would be in order according to the musical artist template to list everyone under "Past Members".Sodapaps (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never liked the way it's done at The Beatles' article and would be in favour of listing all Pink Floyd members as "Past members", unless and until one or more of them declare the band to be active again.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   22:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the one-off, Waters hasn't played with Pink Floyd since The Final Cut. However, he never ceased being a "member". I'ts not like he was bought out, or something. He retained his share in the band, and kept full vote, and veto power. The 3 piece version of "Pink Floyd" needed Waters' permissions to release works such as P.U.L.S.E., and Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd. I had a similar discussion on the talk page of the Beach Boys article. (My view was slightly different there, as The Beach Boys remain an active entity.) Anyway, the article lists Brian Wilson, and Al Jardine as members. Whilst they don't perform, or record with the band, they remain full members. Roger Waters' situation with Pink Floyd is quite similar.Mk5384 (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, Richard Wright continues to be a member. If we were to be absolutely precise about this, it should list "The estate of Richard Wright". I doubt that anyone would argue seriously for that change.Mk5384 (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between Pink Floyd the band (which this page is about) and Pink Floyd the corporation. As Far as Pink Floyd the band is concerned, Roger Waters has not been a member since 1985. A member of a band is someone who plays in the band. Further, Roger Waters has no rights to any of the new music/albums that have come out since he left. i.e. Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell. Once again showing that he is no longer a member. Finally, Pink Floyd does not need permission from Roger Waters to release albums such as Pulse. He does get paid royalties, but that is it. Further, I fail to see how you could list "The estate of Richard Wright" as a member of a band. Does the estate play the piano? No. It receives royalties for sure, but that doesn't make it a band member, it makes it a corporate member. I agree with Radiopathy that they should all be listed under former members. This is inline with the template on Wikipedia for musical artists. I would challenge anyone to find a Wikipedia page on a band that lists members who are no longer active as "members" and not "former members". I would also challenge you to find a band (other than the beatles, which I agree I don't like that format) that is inactive that doesn't list it's members as "former members". Perhaps a good comparison would be the band Genesis. On their page only Phil Collins, Tony Banks, and and Mike Rutherford are listed, even though Peter Gabriel still own rights to aspects of the band like Roger Waters does to Pink Floyd. Also, INXS does not list Michael Hutchence as a member. Why? Because he's deceased, as it clearly states on the page. I'm sure his estate receives royalty payments. I would argue that the problem we are having is that some folks are simply unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Pink Floyd exists without Roger Waters, but I could be wrong. What's frustrating is to see that this article, which was once a featured article, deviates from the norm in more than one respect in regards to this section. 1 - it lists current members of a band that is inactive (I'd be willing to have that discussion), and 2 - even if we determine that the band is active, it lists a member who is no longer playing witht the band, and a member who is deceased. Proper form would dictate that neither of these persons should be listed.Sodapaps (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think then that the pertinent question is, are Pink Floyd a band, or were Pink Floyd a band? Parrot of Doom 17:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that that is a discussion that should happen. I would argue that are still a band as they have never officially split up. That being said, how long does a band have to be "inactive" before the are a were? If you consider they haven't put any new music out in 15 years, does that count? That being said, even if we determine they "are" a band, Roger Waters and Richard Wright should not be listed as members. (In my opinion only, of course)Sodapaps (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Were" seems more accurate just now. --John (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "were". So, do we list everyone on the former members section then? Per the band template?Sodapaps (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. I'm fairly sure that David Gilmour has been quoted in the past saying things along the line of "been there, done that, life's too short" when asked about continuing as Pink Floyd.  Never say never though. Parrot of Doom 23:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My statement was meant to intone the fallicy of including "the estate of Richard Wright". I'm sorry if that was unclear. P.U.L.S.E. contained a live performance of DSOTM, and the band did need to get Waters' permissions to release it. I used the comparison to The Beach Boys to illustrate what you basically said. Brian Wilson and Al Jardine are members of the Beach Boys corporation, yet not of the Beach Boys as a performing entity. They are still listed as "members".Mk5384 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I still say "were", unless and until, per my post above.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•   23:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This can certainly go a number of ways. I have no major issue with the way it is. I do have a minor objection to Rado Klose being listed in the same section, as he made no real contributions to Pink Floyd, as we know it.Mk5384 (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that we should seriously consider dropping Bob Klose from the info box. Klose was out of the band by the time of their first commercial release. His contributions to the band are mentioned in the article proper, which I think is sufficient. Does anyone object to this?Mk5384 (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with that, although I suppose he was a member in the very beginning, so you could make an argument either way.Sodapaps (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He was, but by those lines, we could include Clive Metcalfe, Juliette Gale, Clive Welham, and others. I think that the common criterion is, "did that person play on any music commercially released by the band?" Klose was gone by the time Arnold Layne was released. I'll wait to see if anyone else wants to weigh in on this.Mk5384 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the timeline at the bottom of the article lists Wright as (1965-1979), (1993-1996). Whilst technically correct, as Wright recorded and performed with the band, albeit as a salaried musician from 1987, perhaps it should in some way reflect this.Mk5384 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How can anyone possibly say that Bob Klose's name be dropped? Should Pete Best also be dropped from the Beatles' former members section? Klose was either in the band or he wasnt. And every single interview,documentary or book Ive read on PF history says that he was indeed an original member of PF. The fact that he left prior to Arnold Layne is completely irrelevant. (Do bands only start to exist once they have commercial releases? I think not.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.219.230 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Set lists
I've been having an interesting conversation with User talk:86.204.196.78 about the inclusion of set lists from certain notable concerts in the article. As I said to the IP (who turned out to be User talk:Lurulu editing while logged out, but that's another story), my opinion is that we basically shouldn't have any; it seems over-detailed and to place undue weight on those particular concerts, per Nev1. I don't want to sound dogmatic, and I stress I am talking as a regular editor here, not an admin. I think where reliable sources have discussed the set list (discussed why they chose those songs, rather than just recorded what the set list was) then we could have it in the article, if there is consensus here that it is a net benefit. Certainly the YouTube links don't begin to cut it for me. Any other opinions? --John (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Something
What about these, concerning sales? http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/article/3569-pink-floyd-emi-in-legal-tussle.html http://www.memorabilia-uk.co.uk/product_desc.php?id=2902 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revan ltrl (talk • contribs) 23:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And, btw, what happened to the 210M figure? Did the source suddenly turn unreliable or what? Revan ltrl (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Parrot thinks that we should wait until the deal closes with another company to include it. We had a discussion a while ago. The Doomsday Machine!   (Blastoff!)  01:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Legacy
The multi-headed beast that is the list "of notable musicians and bands from diverse genres [that] have been influenced by Pink Floyd's music and multi-media shows" is growing to silly proportions, again. How can we best manage this? Can anyone name a modern rock band that doesn't meet those criteria? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, I've been watching recent additions and thinking that the section needs trimming, but wanted to let Christo finish before I said anything. Personally I'd stick to no more than two notable artists from each genre, and only when an explicit reference to "I was influenced by Pink Floyd" is given.  A source that says "this sounds like Pink Floyd" is inadequate. Parrot of Doom 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To take an analogy, we don't have on the article on William Shakespeare a list of modern artists influenced by him, because the list would be too long as it would include just about every modern writer. Two (or fewer) artists per genre and a high standard of sourcing, are sensible starting points for this. --John (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sad but true. Impressive work and sourcing, but with something like the Floyd, the list goes on and on&mdash;where do you stop? Or start?. The point is better made with few or no names mentioned. PL290 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the fact that the list with artists (partially influenced by Pink Floyd) maybe becomes too long. BUT, if you take a look to the articles of artists like The Who and Led Zeppelin than we can detect a comparable list. Under section "Musical impact" of the "The Who" article about 32 artists are mentioned. The article of Led Zeppelin contains even a much longer list (about 60 artists). Instead of mentioning all these artists in a list, we can mention the artists in different sentences with some more explanation (and sources). Or we can reduce the list, but than the same should be done in all articles of influential groups.Christo jones (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm far from happy with this article as it stands, and intend to get around to 'finishing it' one day, but I think that those two articles are a poor choice to compare this to. For nearly all the bands listed in that section, only a very few warrant a mention.  That Pink Floyd are relevant to those bands does not automatically mean that those bands are relevant to Pink Floyd. Parrot of Doom 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, without commenting on those articles there's always an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS involved when making arguments like this, Christo. Per PoD it really needs a trim, and per PL290 I'd probably rather have very few or none. The list just looks awful, no offense Christo as I think you added it. Take the Shakespeare example above; can you imagine listing there all the artists he influenced or who had name-checked him over the years? --John (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no reason or agreement on this talk page to delete almost the whole 'legacy part' of Pink Floyd. Compare it with other articles of such rock groups. Instead of deleting things (the most easiest thing that anyone can do), you can improve the paragraphs...Christo jones (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, such comparisons aren't really helpful. Most of that section is pointless trivia, and not at all enlightening.  If you want, you can create Artists influenced by Pink Floyd, and put it all in there. Parrot of Doom 20:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * An article concerning the Pink Floyd influence (with a lot of reliable sources) would be a good idea. I will think about it.Christo jones (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo Names Discrepancy
On the main page, the top right photo says:

Pink Floyd in 1968 (from left to right): Nick Mason, Syd Barrett, David Gilmour (seated in front), Roger Waters, Richard Wright

and when you click on the photo, the naming is as so:

Photograph of all significant members of Pink Floyd. Nick Mason, Syd Barrett, Roger Waters, [Richard Wright, and David Gilmore (seated)]

Am I wrong to think that there is contradiction in the naming of the persons?

Can someone more knowing than I correct the character names on this?

Main page says that Roger Waters and Richard Wright are seated. Photo page says that Richard Wright and David Gilmore are seated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.236.96.72 (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

reassessment of Good article status.
I see the article was nominated for a reassessment of its  Good article status. But i dont see what the problem is. Not protesting the nomination..just wondering if any concerns can be dealt with by simply mentioning them here as a courtesy to editors so they can begin to address the problems. Could whoever nominated the article pls give a brief descriptions of what the perceived problems  are? Its seems well referenced (see only 2 dead links). Covers alot of info nothing seems left-out... well written in British English etc etc etc... Moxy (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the comments on the GAR page. — GabeMc (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * thank you for taken the time.01:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

richard wright rejoin date
Wright rejoined in 1987 NOT 1993!

KPS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.40.178 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead image
Can I ask why the article is led by a non-free image of the band when we have free images of the band in concert? J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not with Barrett you don't. Parrot of Doom 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's still Pink Floyd. Surely the most recent lineup would be the most encyclopedic for a lead image? The lead image should illustrate the subject of the article (in this case, Pink Floyd) and if we have free images of that subject, a non-free one should not be used to lead. J Milburn (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That picture documents a rare moment in the band's history, when Barrett and Gilmour were both active members. It shows all the members of the band, and it's unlikely that a free replacement exists.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Radio, do you think its use could also be justified in the Roger Waters article, in the section about the formation of Floyd? — GabeMc (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know really, but I think it could be argued that the presence of Gilmour in the pic would disqualify it being used for that purpose. Besides, it's a non-free image, and it can't just keep popping up everywhere.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It could also be argued then, could it not, that the presence of Barrett would disqualify it being used for the purpose of a lede image in the wiki article about Pink Floyd, since, according to the article, Barrett was removed from the group in 1968. — GabeMc (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, but nice try!  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does the presence of Gilmour disqualify it for use at Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't say it did. It's only my opinion. If you have any doubts, you could try it in that article and see how it plays...and maybe J Milburn could weigh-in as well.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, and it didn't, I just don't see why the fair-use rationale would be so different. — GabeMc (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The problem is, there was no rationale at all for that image's use in that article. A non-free image needs a distinct rationale for each article in which it appears. Try again - but no guarantees.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  02:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the appearance of the image in the Waters article. Radiopathy, you note that the fact that "that the presence of Barrett would disqualify it being used for the purpose of a lede image in the wiki article about Pink Floyd, since, according to the article, Barrett was removed from the group in 1968" is "not at all" true. Ignoring for a second the obvious NFC concerns, why not? Surely, the most recent lineup would be the most encyclopedic? That is how biographies are normally treated- recent images are given precedent... J Milburn (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * the most encyclopaedic image would probably be the most iconic, and that surely is pink Floyd in their prime, mid 70s. This debate has occurred before with a similar image that was eventually deleted. My position is unchanged, its worth using this image here, but I'm not going to create a song and dance about it. Parrot of Doom 09:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the band, so I couldn't really comment there. What I will say is that we should not be using non-free content when we have free content- we have free images that show the band, and so one of them (whether a live shot or a composite) should be used in the infobox. Obviously, a note in the caption about which lineup is shown would be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We have "free" images but none of them convey the same quality of information as the existing one, therefore they are not "free equivalents". The current image is irreplaceable, as it's one of only 3 existing that show all 5 Pink Floyd members together. The fair use rationale for the image's use in this article spells that out very well. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, but that doesn't mean that there aren't other free images of the band. We have free images, we should lead with one of them. Alternatively, a composite, as is done at The Beatles. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The only problem with this is that there are no free images available of Barrett and none can be created as he is deceased. The article does contain a mashup of the other four members, but a free composite including all 5 members would be impossible. It's a tricky situation and this is why this article has had the current lede photo for so long. There's nothing wrong with adding free photos of the band to the article, but the current lede photo is currently irreplacable (and probably always will be). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that there are free photos of Pink Floyd? Are you saying that no photo without Barrett could possible be "Pink Floyd"? J Milburn (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is venturing into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. What I said was, copied and posted from above,: The current image is irreplaceable, as it's one of only 3 existing that show all 5 Pink Floyd members together. The most encyclopedic image incorporates all of the members. An image of Pink Floyd without Barrett would not convey the same information as the existing image, and is therefore not "a free EQUIVALENT". A free equivalent would show all of the members. If you want to call up Mick Rock and ask him to release his photos on a free license then be my guest, but aside from that there's no other free image that could replace the existing one. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As the one believing that this is irreplaceable, it would actually be your responsibility to do that, not mine- the burden of proof lies with you. Anyways, as I have said, no, other pictures may not be as nice, but that doesn't mean that they are not pictures of Pink Floyd. We have free images of the band, we should be using them. This is not as difficult as you are trying to make it. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An image without Barrett would have significantly lower EV. All five band members made significant contributions, and so all five are a part of the band. The fact that Gilmour came and Barrett left is irrelevant over the fact that Pink Floyd would not be Pink Floyd if every member had not made their contribution. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, considering you're the only one here demanding to replace it with a different photo, and several people have disagreed with you, I would say the burden of proof is on YOU. I've explained, very clearly, why the image is not replaceable. You just don't agree with me and so you're trying to ignore the several very clear explanations given. Existing consensus, in place over a period of years, has been that the current photo is irreplaceable. If you want to change the current photo out for a different band photo than it is up to you to gain consensus. Encyclopedic value and the conveyance of information is not simply about what is "nice". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the burden of proof is on those wishing to include non-free content to demonstrate that it is irreplaceable- technically, yes, that would entail you making reasonable efforts to secure a free version, such as by emailing respective copyright holders. See our non-free content criteria. However, again, you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. The lead image needs to be a free image of Pink Floyd, not "the Pink Floyd some people on the talk page have decided is the best". Do we have free images of Pink Floyd? Yes. Are you saying this is not a picture of Pink Floyd? If you are not, you admit we have free pictures of Pink Floyd. We should not be using a non-free image purely to show Pink Floyd when we have a free picture of Pink Floyd. As I have said, simple. J Milburn (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not Pink Floyd without Barrett and it's not a free equivalent without him either. Find a free one that includes Barrett and there's no problem. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Interview last night
Floydian Slip conducted an interview with Gerald Scarfe which aired last night. The transcript can be found here. I already used it as a source for a bit of the intro of the Scarfe article but others may want to pick more bits from it for the article here. Dismas |(talk) 11:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Extended Legacy Section
Pink Floyd is one of the most influential bands ever; why not extend the legacy section and mark several bands that have been influenced by them, e.g. Tool, Radiohead, Opeth, Nine Inch Nails? Revan ltrl (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Main Image
I feel the main image is in need of an update.

• It is often considered that Pink Floyd consists of four members. Despite Syd being around in the early days and a major influence for the group, he, for a long time was not considered part of Pink Floyd.

• Not all the faces in the photo are clear. Roger's looking the other way!

• Even if they were clear it would not give an accurate representation of what they look like now.

Any chance of a the Live 8 group hug making an appearance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.195.236 (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The current image is the best one for many many reasons. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to expand upon them? A free image of the members (perhaps a shot like the one used in The Beatles) would be far preferable straight off the bat. J Milburn (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As has been made clear by consensus many times, Syd's appearance is important to the article. The band would not be Pink Floyd without his contributions. The fair use rationale is irrelevant - There are no free pictures of Syd. Removing him from the main image would neccessitate placing a standalone image of him somewhere in the article. There is no loss or gain for free-imagery, and no policy which aims to keep FUR images out of infoboxen.


 * I'll say it once, and I'm sure others will reverberate this: I'll take a fair-use image of the highest encyclopedic value over a free image of the four of them taken thirty years after the fact. I'd consider a montage of free images showing them in the 60s or 70s. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nice, you're welcome to think that if you like. However, we do actually have policies on the subject. You've made quite clear you're not interested in our policies ("There is no loss or gain for free-imagery, and no policy which aims to keep FUR images out of infoboxen." Right. Great.) So, depressingly, because I have better things to do, I'll leave you to it. J Milburn (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously misread what I posted. I am well aware of Wikipedia guideline; I didn't join yesterday. What I said was that there needs to be an image fo Syd in the article. Whether this is in the lead photo, or somewhere else in the article, is not important. Why? Because there are no free images of Syd Barrett, anywhere. There won't be for many many years. Therefore, there is no fair use rationale argument; replacing the infobox FUI with a free image would still result in another FUI appearing in the article. That means in terms of number of images, there is no net change.
 * Basically you'll need an argument other than free vs fair use. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You make the assumption that there is no such thing as a photo of Pink Floyd without Syd Barrett. I dispute that. The band existed without him, and so there are or could be free pictures of Pink Floyd, which is what is needed for the lead; not a picture of Barrett. And no, his appearance is not important enough to the article to warrant a non-free image of him. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting to the bread and butter :)
 * There are a few free images, but these do not show the person who A) named the band B) wrote their first single C) wrote most of their first album, D) sang most of the lyrics while involved, and most importantly E) provided the most recognizable and significant influence to three of the four multi-platinum productions released by Pink Floyd between 1973 and 1979. In the end, its debateable whether he is important enough or not, and that is essentially all that can be argued. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A good point, but I am not disputing his importance, merely the importance of his physical appearance. In order for a non-free image to be used in an article, it has to add significantly to the article; not merely show someone or something that is important to the article. Our lead image needs to be a free image of Pink Floyd- we have them- and for an image of Barrett to be justified, he needs to be more than merely important in and of himself, the picture has to add significantly to the article. It is not clear how it would do that. As such, I propose a free image is used to lead the article, and, regrettable though it may be, we go without an image of Barrett, instead settling to just discuss his influence; what he looks like is not, at heart, important. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The main image is important due to all the members of the band appearing in it, including Barrett. No update is needed. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:51 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, are you denying that the incarnations of the band without Barrett are Pink Floyd? J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's significant because it's a very rare photo of the short-lived 5 piece. No denial and no change. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:58 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you accept that there are incarnations of the band without Barrett, and so accept that there could be free images of the band; non-free content criterion 1 says that we may not use non-free images when free ones exist. Surely, that would mean that we could not use a non-free image? J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a 100% rehash of this discussion from just a few months back. The arguments are all the same and consensus is the same as well. Would you please stop beating the dead horse or at least come up with a new argument? It isn't Pink Floyd without Barrett, there are no existing free images of him and none can be created as he's deceased. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, the article disagrees with you. The article seems to imply that Pink Floyd did exist without Barrett. You may want to go and fix that. I'm afraid you can't throw around the c-word when policy is clearly against you. J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it balances on a thin thread of policy right now that has to be decided by consensus. If nobody agrees that an image of just the four fairly represents the band, then consensus is that the lack of said FUI would significantly detract from readers understanding. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted, but unless you're going to argue that it is not the band without Barrett, I really can't see how you can do that. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) The criterion says "a free equivalent that would convey the same information". A later photo of the 1980s era band, or the 90s era band, would not convey the same information. Pink Floyd is not just some people, but a concept, contributed to by all members past and present. It would not be Pink Floyd, an artistic concept, without all of them making their contribution and creating the concept of Pink Floyd. The image is historically significant (UNIQUE, even), irreplaceable as it conveys information any existing free image cannot convey. The thing about "arguing it's not the band without Barrett" is a statement of a singular position. A free equivalent conveying the same information of the existing image would contain all of the same people in the existing image. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with the rules about free vs. non-free content to comment about this. I will say that the 4-way photo further down in the article, titled "Pink Floyd's classic line-up" should probably use photos of them that were taken during the years that this line-up performed together. If this isn't possible, then perhaps the caption should be changed, as it could be confusing to an uninformed reader. In each of these photographs the respective band member is not even performing with Pink Floyd. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dates active
Should "years active" be changed to include Floyd's (Gilmour/Wright/Mason) one-off 2007 appearance at the Syd Barrett tribute?? eg. 1965-1996, 2005, 2007 69.143.170.193 (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count one-off reunions as being "active" at all, and would advocate removing 2008. The band was not active after 1995, they just had one-off benefit performances. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  23:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one-off benefits don't really count. Otherwise there would also be that show they played where Rick Wright was singing Arnold Layne shortly before he died. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One difference may be that I don't think that the performance of Gilmour, Mason and Wright at the Barrett tribute was actually billed as "Pink Floyd". I believe the official billing was "David Gilmour with Nick Mason and Richard Wright". Roger Waters played a set at that concert, and he may very well have refused to play if the 3 of them were calling themselves Pink Floyd. I believe Gilmour was also happy to comply, not wishing to fuel the public's hopes of a full scale reunion, such as that which happened in the weeks that followed their 2005 performance. At Live 8, on the other hand, Pink Floyd performed as an official entity. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bob Klose
Bob Klose used to be listed as a member of Pink Floyd under "past band members" along with Barrett, Gilmour, Mason, Waters, and Wright. Shouldn't he be listed again, even though he was only in the band for a year or so and his contribution to the band's catalog is rather small (just a few demoes)? After all, he was the lead guitarist and an official member of Pink Floyd. Preservedmoose (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bob Klose has never contributed to an official Pink Floyd release. He did no concert tours with Pink Floyd, just some short concerts in the early years. So to me, Klose should not be listed as a member.Christo jones (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I see what you're saying, but don't you think that because he was considered an official member of the band (and they were called [The] Pink Floyd during his tenure, which lasted from sometime in 1964 to 1966) he should be listed as a past member?  I just feel that other band pages on Wiki list people who were in bands for a few months, or not even official members.  Do what you want to do, I just think that he has the right to be listed...but whatever. Preservedmoose (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Nick Mason's book, Klose left the band in the summer of 1965, and they started using variations of the name Pink Floyd during the autumn of 1965, so no, Klose was never in a band called Pink Floyd, at least not according to Mason. — GabeMc (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Momentary Lapse
The statement that a group photo was included "to drive home the message that Waters left the band", should probably be cited with a refrence. Also, the sentence is followed by a footnote, which says that "Wright's name appears only on the credit list". While the article makes it clear that Wright appeared as a salaried musician, rather than an official member of the band, the footnote seems unnessecarily confusing. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As no one has responded to this comment, I'll assume there is no objection to a change. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Let's not bother" quote?
An IP has modified a quotation from Mason's book "Inside Out – A Personal History of Pink Floyd" from "Fuck it, let's not bother" to "Let's not bother". I don't have the book to hand but was this edit meant to correct a quotation or a well-intentioned attempt to clean up the language? Of course WP is not censored - I would rather see the correct quote on this page. But which is it? There was no edit summary accompanying the IP's edit. Careful With That Axe, Eugene Hello...  11:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Mason's book the response to the question, "Shall we pick up Syd?" was, "No, fuck it, let's not bother." — GabeMc (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. "Fuck it" should be restored. FloydRule (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sales
May ask why the number of album sales was constantly reduced before (from 250 million to 210, then to 200)? I mean, did the sources then suddenly turn unreliable overnight or what? A follow-up: if, say, two reliable sources each claim a different number, 200 and 250, does wikipedia mention an estimation or claims one of the numbers as a truth? Revan ltrl (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources used in the article to verify the band's estimated album sales both report 200 million. — GabeMc (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

May I ask what happened to the sources that stated 210 and 250 million? Would someone be so kind to enlighten me? Revan ltrl (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nick's Boogie


The article Nick's Boogie has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Singles generally do not meet WP:V and WP:N, no mention of notability no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Influences
I think this article should really include an "Influences" section. For instance, if I'm not wrong, some musicians/bands that influenced Pink Floyd and their sound include (American blues and R&B as well as) AMM, The Beatles, Beach Boys, Beaver & Krause, among many others. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources discussing those influences, then I agree that it merits mentioning in the article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  03:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Any floyd enthusiast knows these facts:

1) It is well documented that Syd Barrett attended the session, and that AMM's guitarist Keith Rowe exerted a strong influence on the embryonic Pink Floyd genius. - The Wire, Volumes 239-244, 2004.

2) Another view is that Syd was writing in the shadow of his greatest influence, The Beatles. - Crazy diamond: Syd Barrett & the dawn of Pink Floyd By Mike Watkinson, Pete Anderson

3) Echoes: the complete history of Pink Floyd by Glenn Povey discusses "Gilmour's habit of inserting riffs from the Beatles songs".

4) A quick listen to the 1971 Beaver & Krause album Gandharva will reveal that the whole approach is undeniably very similar, musically. - Echoes: the complete history of Pink Floyd by Glenn Povey

5) And without the Beatles, no Pink Floyd, we might add. - Speak to me: the legacy of Pink Floyd's The dark side of the moon By Russell Reising

6) "We benefited enormously from The Beatles," says Nick Mason. "We'd done some recordings before we went to EMI and we understood the basics of multi-track recording and, as I say, thanks to The Beatles, we probably were given more of an opportunity to learn." - The Piper at the gates of dawn By John Eric Cavanagh

7) Things like AMM had an influence. - The Piper at the gates of dawn By John Eric Cavanagh

8) Originally, Waters wanted to offset the heaviness of the song with some light Beach Boys-style harmonies. - Another Brick in the Wall: The Stories Behind Every Pink Floyd Song by Cliff Jones

Judaispriest (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Most critically acclaimed
Can anyone find WP:RS for this assertion, "Pink Floyd are one of the most critically acclaimed rock music groups of all time". Well, they initially got many negative reviews (and still do), for instance Jim Miller said in 1968, "Unfortunately the Pink Floyd's second album, A Saucerful of Secrets, is not as interesting as their first, as a matter of fact, it is rather mediocre." So declaring them the most critically acclaimed rock music group is really pushing it without reliable sources. Judaispriest (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no response for more than three days. I assume nobody disagrees with this. Judaispriest (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And the claim is unreferenced/ uncited too. Judaispriest (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding more music clips
Is there a problem with adding more music clips (under fair use, of course) to this page? Other pages for bands have many samples; this one only has two.InverseHypercube (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Urgent attention
The boxes at the bottom of the article need to be put in a box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheled Umlal (talk • contribs) 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence
The lead sentence states: "Pink Floyd were an English rock band who achieved worldwide success with their psychedelic and progressive rock music." They weren't really known for psychedelic music; they did it in their early years, when they weren't well-known in the US. Could someone please change this? Bulldog73 (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been no objections, so I'll try to fix the problem. Unless you have consensus to do so, please don't revert my edit. Thanks, Bulldog edit my talk page   da contribs  01:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:Silence is the weakest form of consensus, fyi. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  02:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Psychedelic should stay. Yes Pink Floyd may have achieved it's legendary status during the 70's with DSOTM, WYWH, Animals and The Wall. There was a Pink Floyd pre Dark Side of the Moon though and they weren't some unknown band that suddenly had a hit. When Pink Floyd began under Syd they were very much psychedelic in terms of the word is generally used and they weren't no name band. Arnold Layne made it to #20 on the charts despite being banned by the BBC and got huge support from Paul McCartney that helped propel it. See Emily Play then hit #3, Piper at the Gates of Dawn hit #6 on the charts while A Saucerful of Secrets hit #9 on the charts, ect. They didn't get the nickname 'Dandy darlings of the psychedelic underground" by not garnering fame even in their earliest days. Some people also argue More, Ummagumma, and parts of Atom Heart Mother(which was their first #1) are also quasi psychedelic but that's another argument. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but when Syd assumed leadership, their music wasn't popular worldwide, but only in England. Suffice to say, A Saucerful of Secrets didn't chart on the Billboard 200 in the US. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs review me 02:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * *Ahem* The Piper at the Gates of Dawn seemed to have done well in other European countries. Their stuff leading up to Atom Heart Mother still did relatively well in France, so you could consider them an international success. You know, there's more to the music world than the Billboard 200 charts.

"Years active" section and Reunions (should be only 1965-1994; 2005)
I think that "Years active" should be kept to 1965-1994 and 2005. Following the last concert of the Division Bell Tour (29 October 1994) the band officially went on stage only once (02 July 2005). Yes, there were all kinds of band member's get-togethers before and after (private functions such as Gilmour's 50th B-day in 1996, memorial service for Steve O'Rourke in 2003; last night of Gilmour's tour in 2006, Barrett's honorary event in 2007, Water's The Wall one-off in 2011 and so on), but I would not consider these to be band's (Pink Floyd) activities. Please note that band members (even all bend members) can get together and even perform the band's material without this being an official reunion; for example, for Barrett's evening in 2007 they were billed on stage as "Gilmour, Mason and Wright", i.e. NOT as Pink Floyd. I know this sounds strange (If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck), but there is a difference here. Thus, I would reduce the activity dates to official billings as Pink Floyd only. --FreedonNadd (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After Rick Wright's death, there can NEVER be a Pink Floyd reunion. 81.83.136.78 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that one is extremely unlikely now, given Wright's death. However, one would certainly be possible if there was will for it. There were two incarnations of Pink Floyd without Wright: a) the later part of The Wall era and The Final Cut era, and b) most of the studio phase of The Momentary Lapse of Reason era. During The Wall era Wright was officially pushed out of the band during later recording sessions for the album, and participated in The Wall tour only as a salaried musician; subsequently, Wright had nothing to do with The Final Cut record. Also, Wright's involvement with recording of the Momentary Lapse of Reason was fairly minimal and came at the very end - initial pressings of the record had Gilmour and Mason on the inner sleeve only, and there was even a 1979 clause that prevented Wright from officially re-joining the band (this was later ratified, and he officially rejoined). In short, official Pink Floyd reunion consisting of Gilmour-Mason (1986-1987 PF) or Gilmour-Mason-Waters (1979-1983 PF) is still possible. However, I do agree that this most likely won't happen now. --FreedonNadd (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)