Talk:Pink Floyd discography/Archive 1

Recent revision of pictures?
What happened here? this article was very nice and now ... not so much. This used to be an excellent discography? I saw that they were removed by A Man In Black...what was the problem? many discographys have this identical layout. Were the images too big? I saw you cited rule #8, which seemed totally satisfied, they contributed greatly and were not merely decorative. All those same images were used in the actual album pages too. I am confused. and as for rule #3...If the image sized were bumpped down could they stay (even though they were not all that big to start with, by no means big enough to be used for piracy)? The copy rights under all of these images allow for this exact thing do they not? I feel a revert is in order...Ostrolphant 17:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the images should be put back. Not looking at the legal aspects, the page looks so boring and it doesn't convey the correct purpose of the page, which is to show all of the Pink Floyd releases at a glance. I think it is kinda ridiculous to take the album covers away from a page that lists albums. I haven't seen this done anywhere else on Wikipedia. Auhsor 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Singles and EPs
Information about singles and EPs is missing. This should be added.

The "bonus" disc which comes with the Shine On box set, entitled The Pink Floyd Early Singles includes the tracks:


 * 1) Candy and a Currant Bun -- non-album single (inc. on Masters of Rock compilation)
 * 2) The Scarecrow -- non-album single (inc. on Masters of Rock compilation)
 * 3) Paintbox -- non-album single (inc. on Masters of Rock compilation)
 * 4) Julia Dream -- non-album single (inc. on Masters of Rock compilation)
 * 5) Careful with That Axe Eugene -- Ummagumma (1969)

Yet none of these are listed under singles on the discography page. My guess is they were, with the possible exception of "Eugene," all U.K. singles releases.

--Symmerhill (a.k.a. Summerhilll) (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two were certainly issued as singles in the UK. In fact they were on the only two PF singles I ever bought. Candy and a Currant Bun was the B side of Arnold Layne and The Scarecrow was the B side of See Emily Play. It might possible have been the other way round, but I'm pretty sure that's right. Brumel (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see someone has entered the info on B sides lower down the page. Brumel (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Soundtracks
I don't want to mess up the layout, but More and Obscured... belong under 'Studio Albums'; tat's what they are. Andy Mabbett 22:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. --84.142.157.119 12:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"I don't want to mess up the layout, but More and Obscured... belong under 'Studio Albums'; tat's what they are". I fully agree. Somebody should fix it.


 * Soundtracks are studio albums as well, but they are soundtracks and should be placed into soundtrack section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.192.230.12 (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What about albums sold?? i would like to know the approx. amount of albums sold worldwide for each floyd record. i only know very vague figures, like DSOTM selling 40m or something, but this should be added.

Hey, what about Zabriskie Point soundtrack? They've got some tunes on there. Also, I'm listening to the Complete Zabriskie Point sessions right now; pretty good stuff. Where's the mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.46.116 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question, it certainly belongs here. And why is "The Committee" here?  Was a soundtrack album issued (the link to the article about the film says nothing about it), and if not, what is it doing in the discography article?  The article says there is a release on Columbia in LP, cassette, and CD format.  Never heard of it, and are any CDs issued on the Colubia label?  I thought they had all changed to the EMI label by the time of the CD era.  I could be wrong; the article could be improved by clarifying this question.  I also note that Columbia releases are stated inconsistently: "Columbia", "Columbia/EMI", "Columbia (EMI)", and "Columbia, EMI" are used in various places. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: An major change has been made to the article: the soundtrack section has been eliminated (merged into studio albums), and The Committee has been removed, but Zambriskie Point has not been added, which suggests that the removal of The Committee was not the result of that editor reading this talk page. I guess editors are doing major work on these articles without bothering to read talk page discussions. AND there are a lot of edits being made under anonymous IPs.  Now I have nothing against anon IPs; they do good work, but when editors work without an identity, without a user talk page to discuss their changes or receive feedback, and without consulting article talk pages, it seems like they want to make decisions all by themselves, not care to discuss it first, and maybe not care if their edits get reverted.  Editing should not be a vanity activity, but that's how it comes across.  A new problem has been introduced: we now have all the info for Ummagumma in two places, including chart info, which will make it difficult to maintain and keep the two sections in sync.  It seems to me that this is an improper way to format an article.  I realize Ummagumma is in a difficult situation because it could fit in either of two categories, but we need to pick one, and just put a pointer in the other category, i.e. "Ummagumma - see studio albums" (or "see live albums", depending on where the main entry is to go). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the recent changes(24.235.176.44). Zabriskie Point is not a proper PF album since it contains songs from other artists as well, hence, I don't feel it belongs in the PF discography. I also feel that More and OBC should be placed with the other studio albums, since they were recorded as studio albums, just like any other. THat said, I don't mind if somebody reverts my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshead (talk • contribs) 04:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you responded, you must read the talk pages, so my apologies (though I still think my gripes are applicable as a generality aimed at nobody in particular). I don't have any problem with moving those two albums to the studio section.  But I still think the duplicate entry for Ummagumma needs to be fixed, and a "various artists" album with tracks that can't be found elsewhere, or at least were first issued on that album, certainly does belong in an artist's discography, since a list of their works is incomplete without it.  It probably doesn't belong in the main studio albums section, nor in compilations, so a separate soundtracks section is most appropriate, given that soundtrack albums often contain tracks by more than one artist.  But then, if we restore the soundtrack section, the other two albums should probably be moved back there.  In short, more work needs to be done. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone's been deleting some non charting singles
I'm pretty sure Flaming, Apples and Oranges, Point Me At The Sky, It Would Be So Nice, One of These Days, The Nile Song, Have A Cigar and Comfortably Numb were all singles, as The Pink Floyd Archives has info on all of them, and "Apples", "Point" and "It" all are known. "Point Me At The Sky"'s B-side was "Careful With That Axe, Eugene". So according to whoever deleted the single, this song does not exist. I've fixed it, though Doc Strange 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I own all the above. So do these not exist? Am I lying, when i have the Apples and Oranges and Have a Cigar singles on my desk right now, the rest within reach? Doc Strange 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious; why do the "vinyl singles (60's)" have their own section, apart from the full singles section (in which they are also listed in?) Tarc 13:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, very curious Doc Strange 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

International Variations in the Release of Singles
I'd like to point out that in the UK, Pink Floyd's country of origin, for the years up to 1987 only "Arnold Layne", "See Emily Play", "Apple and Oranges", "It Would Be So Nice", "Point Me At The Sky", "Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2)", "When The Tigers Broke Free", "Not Now John", "Learning to Fly" (CD Only), and "On the Turning Away" were ever released as singles. However, there is no way of telling this from this page. Could we add something like "N/A" to the chart position column where a single wasn't realised in that country? People reading might wonder why a single like "Money" didn't chart in the UK, without realising that it was never realised there. Unicorn27 16:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, however, this should be a footnote Doc Strange 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pulse video release date
Since the original VHS release date of Pulse is 1995, not 2006, I think that is the date that should listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeshead (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

B-Sides
--Freedom (song) (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"This page lists Pink Floyd albums and singles"
This page lists Pink Floyd albums and singles. Well, give a link to where compilations are listed... wait there they are at the bottom of the page, so that sentence is invalid perhaps... Jidanni (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Join the rock music project
Join the rock music project today, it needs your help. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Singles not released?
Recently there was a revert of the count of singles, the reason given for the revert being "the live singles were not released as official singles". I notice many of the later singles seem to have been added to show their position on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart (column marked "US Main"), which is "a ranking in Billboard magazine of the most-played songs on mainstream rock radio stations".

If these songs weren't released to the public as singles, should they be in this chart at all? If they are in the article just to show their ranking on this chart, perhaps they should be shown in a separate chart. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right This doesn't make any sense to me, either. And the infobox just counts what is listed below; either have the right count or delete them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh they certainly should, as seen from several other discographies. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 04:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're saying they weren't released as singles, but their inclusion in the "singles" section should stand because other discographies make the same error? (Sorry, I'm being a little facetious to highlight the problem.)  If these songs are listed here only because they are on a radio airplay chart, and were never issued as singles, then I don't see how they belong in the article, despite being included in other discographies.  The word "discography" means a list of discs (although by convention it extends to tape formats), and should not include phantom items. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they certainly must have existed as promo discs. Radio stations usually send songs out like that. But I completely get your point. How about we split them, the main discography noting retail released singles, and the table with the promo singles denoting their charting on the Mainstream Rock Tracks and (if any) on the Billboard Hot 100? Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A separate table would be okay, but it should be clear that the table is only being used to show chart positions based on radio play, and the songs were not released as singles (in which case they would not have a Hot 100 rating). As for how music is sent to radio stations, sometimes promo discs are made for specific songs, and sometimes a record company just compiles a various-artists "playlist" CD of songs they want radio stations to play.  Such items are not collectible because the record industry prosecutes record stores that try to sell them second hand. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

:(
Sorry the featured list nomination didn't go through.

I was going to disagree with one change that was requested and implemented: the removal of "Tower Records" and "Columbia Records" as U.S. labels. For the most part, their records were released on one label in some parts of the world, and another in the rest. "U.K." and "U.S." are just two examples, but they are key examples, because Pink Floyd's major contracts were with these 2 labels in these 2 countries, and all other releases were attached to those contracts. I believe the way it was before, is consistent with how this information is usually summarized in discographies. You can bet someone with a Columbia Records copy of "Wish You Were Here" is going to look at the article and see "Harvest", and say "that's wrong" and change it, possibly removing "Harvest" in the process. It would have been better to list both label names. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of singles mentioned in the list are no official singles
Pink Floyd released the following songs not as official singles:

sources: http://www.pinkfloyd-co.com/disco/disc_idx.html, http://www.pinkfloyddiscography.org/, http://pinkfloydhyperbase.dk/recordings.htm#Pink_Floyd_Albums
 * Let There Be More Light
 * Jugband Blues
 * The Nile Song
 * Wish You Were Here (very known song, but not released as single)
 * Your Possible Pasts
 * The Dogs Of War
 * Time and Comfortably Numb (live)??? totally not released as a single
 * What Do You Want From Me
 * Wish You Were Here (live)
 * Young Lust (live)

Where are the sources to say that these songs are released as singles?

Pink Floyd has released about 24 singles. So in the infobox I changed that figure to 25 (in the table it can stay).

Christo jones (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the answers are found in the songs' articles. "Let There Be More Light" was issued in the USA "in edited form" as Tower 440, backed with "Remember a Day", and the article's infobox also notes a Japanese release in 1968.  "Jugband Blues" is shown as having charted in Norway, according the the discography article, and was presumably released as a single in that country.  "The Nile Song" was issued as a single in continental Europe, backed with "Ibiza Bar", and its cover can be seen in its article.  I presume the rest are in the same situation, and I would never say "totally not released as a single" about any of them, based on their absence from fan site discographies.  In the 1970s, EMI allowed their branch offices in virtually every country to invent their own singles release program, and create unique covers, so that even when the same single was issued in several countries, many different covers can exist.  Most European countries aside from the UK issued most singles in covers.  I do agree this could be better explained in the articles, but perhaps it is not known exactly which countries these singles were issued in.  Even when a specific country (i.e. Norway) can be determined for a given release, it may be difficult to say if it was released only in that country, or in several, and if those other countries used the same B-side.  Discogs.com is a good place to research, but being a user contributed site (inviting collectors to enter listings for any records they have on hand), they are far from complete.  I'm fascinated by this page showing covers from nearly 200 Herman's Hermits singles around the world (another EMI artist; also check the EPs page on that site; hover your cursor over a cover to see the country name as part of the link name in most cases).  --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, this site, which lists every single the band ever released anywhere. That's where most (not all) of this information comes from. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we review this again, please? A year ago, we decided that some of these singles should not be included in a table of singles, since they were not released, and only appear because they are on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart, which is a chart of airplay in the USA, not sales. We also agreed that the "counts" seen in the opening paragraph and infobox, function as a summary of the tables which follow, and it doesn't make sense to introduce the tables as having one count, and then show another. I changed the counts to match the table (which shows 37), but Christo jones changed it to 26. I think the latter count is still excluding some of the non-UK singles explained above, but agree that others should be removed from the singles table.

We already discussed reasons for keeping "Jugband Blues" and "Us and Them", and established that the live version of "Wish You Were Here" was really released as a single in 1995.

3 tracks are from Wish You Were Here are shown as charting in Italy and/or Norway, and were probably issued in those countries as singles: "Wish You Were Here", "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", and "Welcome to the Machine". Should these not be keep in?

There are 4 non-live tracks and 4 live tracks that only have an entry in the HMRT column:
 * Yor Possible Pasts
 * The Dogs of War
 * What Do You Want From Me
 * Lost for Words
 * Time (live)
 * Comfortably Numb (live)
 * What Do You Want From Me (live)
 * Youn Lust (live)

Would it be agreeable to move these to a separate table, to retain the HMRT statistics, but making it clear that they aren't singles (and really aren't a discography article, but are being shown just because of the chart stat)?

With the removal of those 8, the count would be 29. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the removal of those 8, that's at least what you can do! And not all the tracks of WHWH were released as a single. Only Have a Cigar. The soundtrack More contained no singles. It's not because the Italians have played all the songs of PF on the radio, that all these songs are singles. What are the sources to claim they've released so many singles? Original research? To me they've released about 26 à 29 singles, surely not more.Christo jones (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We are NOT in disagreement over those 8. But you have removed more than that.  You removed tracks that have been established as singles in this very section of the talk page, and I can't see any reason for disagreeing with that.  There is also the bigger issue that we don't want to REMOVE the live singles from the article entirely, but MOVE them to a separate chart to retain the statistics.  It doesn't make sense to have SOME chart information for Pink Floyd songs from that "Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks" chart, and exclude the rest; that makes the information incomplete.  PLEASE discuss other changes on the talk page.  There has been a lot of discussion on this issue, and it should be clear that the big change you made goes against consensus.  NOBODY should be making a big change like this single-handed at this stage.  We need to have agreement first.  I will move the 8 contentious live singles to a new chart (probably not today, maybe tomorrow), and then we can look at whether any of the others need to be moved or removed, although I think we have already covered that issue before, and agreed they should stay.  And by the way, thanks for continuing to contribute to this article; I realize your changes are being made in good faith, and I do appreciate your input. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at the singles discography, here are some problems I noticed:


 * "Flaming" (rel. Jan. 1968) comes after "Apples and Oranges" (rel. Nov. 1967) in the table.


 * "Jugband Blues" appears to be included based on a chart position listed at norwegiancharts.com but that source shows a chart entry date of week 30 of 2007. There is no indication it was released as a single in 1969.  There is a similar problem with "Wish You Were Here" which shows a chart entry date of week 32 of 2007.  Were these possibly digital download chart positions?


 * "The Nile Song" - No UK or US release but appears to have been released in France and Japan.


 * "Wish You Were Here", "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" and "Welcome to the Machine" from Hit Parade Italia - This web site lists many songs that weren't singles and some of the supposed chart positions may not be what they appear to be. I doubt these were all released as singles in Italy.


 * "Comfortably Numb" was released after "Run Like Hell" but it appears first in the table.


 * "Your Possible Pasts", "Dogs of War", "Time" (live), "Comfortably Numb" (live), "What Do You Want from Me?" and everything after that seem to be album tracks that were on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart. No indication they were singles.


 * "Take It Back" was released before "Keep Talking", and "High Hopes" was the A-side backed with "Keep Talking". Piriczki (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not in disagreement following songs:
 * Your Possible Pasts
 * The Dogs of War
 * What Do You Want From Me
 * Lost for Words
 * Time (live)
 * Comfortably Numb (live)
 * What Do You Want From Me (live)
 * Young Lust (live)

So, I think it's better to move them in another chart as soon as possible (like A Knight Who Says Ni proposed earlier). Today, we're still mentioning that PF released 37 singles and that should be maximum 29. "Jugband Blues" can also be deleted as single. WYWH, Shine On... and Welcome to the machine were not released as single. Surely Welcome To The machine wasn't released as a single. So that brings the total at 27.Christo jones (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another option is to use a symbol to denote charting album tracks that weren't released as singles. For an example, see Tom Petty discography.  The table should also differentiate between instances where a single was released but did not chart and when a single wasn't released in a particular country.  I suggest a blank cell where the single did not chart and a "—" where there was no release. Piriczki (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, if we mention in the infobox the number of only the official singles.Christo jones (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Australian charts
A question to Ss112 who added a second reference source for Australian chart information: What is the explanation for this source having completely different peak positions from the source we were already using? And what can we do to explain this in the article? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't have completely different peak positions. One of the sources is australian-charts.com, and the other is the Australian Chart Books published by David Kent. Because Australian music charts have been compiled since the 1940s, naturally there have been a few different publications generally seen as the main source(s) since then. David Kent is an Australian music journalist who has published books detailing all the weekly charts (well, monthly in the 40s and 50s) from 1940 - 2007, and he says he is going to publish more in the future. But, focusing on what is specifically relevant, australian-charts.com is a website which lists the Australian peak positions on the ARIA Charts since 1988, because ARIA have been running their publications based on their own collected information publications since 1988. I specify "based on their own collected information" because ARIA have actually been running since 1983, but from 1983 to 1988, they simply republished the information David Kent published in his own report, the Kent Music Report. (As you may have been able to tell, David Kent has been in the music journalism business for many years.)

The Kent Music Report was basically the main publication for the Australian charts between 1974 and 1988. (It actually ran until 1998 as a secondary source; it changed its name in 1987 to the Australian Music Report.) When ARIA started publishing their own information in 1988, the ARIA Charts took over as the main source for Australian chart positions. (Before 1974, there was Go-Set magazine. This ran from 1966 - 1974. Before this, there were several charts, including Sydney radio station 2UE's airplay charts and several others. I'm not too sure on actual sales charts.) But anyway, because ARIA only started publishing their own information from 1988, and the Kent Music Report continued as the Australian Music Report until 1998, there is overlap. But this is not specifically relevant to Pink Floyd, (you will discover why below) because I was simply providing this as a backdrop.

So, I specified two sources because of the Kent Report being seen as the main publication from 1974 - 1988, and from then on, ARIA. australian-charts.com only has ARIA Charts-related information. And the Australian Chart Books (which collect retrospect information from as far back as 1940, although, like I have said, there was no such thing as the Kent Report then) are the information you see on Pink Floyd's albums which charted before 1988. There is some overlap, because David Kent's books are information from 1940 - 2007, and not just the specific period in which he published his own report.

Simplified: ARIA is the main source from 1988 to present, and the Kent Report (based on the information published in David Kent's Australian Chart Books) is the source for Pink Floyd's albums which charted in Australia before 1988. (Atom Heart Mother, Relics, Meddle, Obscured by Clouds, The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, The Wall, The Final Cut, Works and A Momentary Lapse of Reason. From Delicate Sound of Thunder onwards, this is ARIA information.) I'm sorry for the long answer, and I hope all was somewhat relevant and made sense to you. Sorry if I bored you :P  Ss112  ( Talk here! ) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. It's important to have things like this explained, so it wasn't a waste of your time to write it.  I do find it strange that there is a website saying, for example, that The Dark Side of the Moon peaked at #11 when it really peaked at #2.  I presume the explanation is that it charted again some time after 1988, and reached #11 at that time.  I would have thought the website would just not cover albums issued before 1988, to prevent misinformation like this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And you would be right. And I don't understand why they don't either.  Ss112  ( Talk here! ) 11:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

List Class?
Sorry to interrupt- this is slightly off-topic, but can someone tell me what constitutes a Category:List Class article, as one project group ranked this article? I've not noticed-- and been around a good enough amount of time --any articles ranked List class (r even A class). Just me and another editor trying to get a handle on some of this stuff. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just depends on what the focus of the content and the wikiproject is. To the Pink Floyd wikiproject, this is a B class article. To any other wikiproject, it would be considered a list, as the majority of the content is not prose (readable paragraphs). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  19:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured List
I think an indepth review of this article should be done, and it nominated for featured list. It is very well organized and well cited. The prose could probably use some unique information beyond sheer numbers and a band bio, such as discussing the artistry of the covers, and that some compilations created alternative mixes to the songs or new segues (Echoes, Great Collection of Dance songs), and other things that pertain to the discography that are not in the main Floyd article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  01:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A full check of the links in the references should be made - ref 31, to the BPI website, is down. It'll probably be accessible elsewhere, I know I had trouble with this until they re-upped all their lists to different addresses. Parrot of Doom 19:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For example - oops Parrot of Doom 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow...
 * I tried checking their website. Seems they just deleted all that content outright. The url makes it impossible to find on the wayback machine as well. Hooray for the music industry! -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  01:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Music Videos
The music videos section is a mess, and desperately needs cleanup. There are no sources, to start with. But what makes it hard to clean up is the question of what constitutes a music video in the case of Waiting for the Worms or the Trial, for example. They both had official videos created to accompany the music, so do they count? The former only accompanied part of the song, so does it count? And considering how much old footage there is floating around out there, it's going to be hard to make a complete list of the older promo films. There are videographies or filmographies available, but many of the older songs had multiple videos, all made around the same time, which complicates it further. I also have no idea where a good, definitive source for this would be. Any ideas? Friginator (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't The Wall itself also counted as a music video? I see no mention of the film at all in the list. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  01:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Chart Positions
Some pages for the albums say they came one position but the discography says they came another and its kindof messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.113.1 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything should be sourced with a link, so you can use the links to double-check chart ranking. If you find anything that doesn't match the reference, by all means correct it.  It's best to use the edit summary to explain what you're doing, so it doesn't look like a random change.  (It's possible that an overlooked random change by a vandal or enthusiastic fan caused the discrepency.)  If the problem is that different articles are using different sources, let us know, and we can help decide which is better, and get it fixed. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow-up! After replying, I noticed you made 4 edits to the article, which were reverted by another editor whose edit summary is "revert unexplained changes". Looking at just your first edit, you changed the Belgian chart position for The Piper at the Gates of Dawn from 39 to 28.  If you look at the heading of the column for Belgium, you will see "BEL [12]" and if you click on the "12" you will be taken to reference number 12, Belgian Album Chart (ultratop.be), which does indeed show this album peaked at 39.  So the article (before your change) did match the reference, and after your change, it didn't.
 * Looking at the Piper article, it shows 2 different rankings for Belgium, and if you click on the links to articles about Belgian charts, you will see that historically there were 2 competing charts, "Flanders" and "Wallonia", with chart positions 28 and 39 respectively. Both stats use the same website, ultratop.be as a reference.  If you go to that site's page for the Piper album (as the WP Piper artilce does), you will see both stats.  If you just search "Pink Floyd" on that site (as the WP "discography" article does), you will only see the Wallonia stat.  Presumably, the website considers the Wallonia chart to be the better choice for searches by artist, for whatever reason.
 * So your change wasn't actually wrong, but it did create a situation where the reference did not match the information. What to do?  The discography article does not have references for each album, just one per column heading.  I notice an exception (probably for a similar reason) was made for "Another Brick in the Wall, Part II" in the singles section: the French chart entry has a reference of its own which presumably overrides the column heading reference.  You could use that method to point to the same page that the Piper article does, and therefore use the chart position of 28.
 * If you would like to give that a try, go ahead. But be sure to use the edit summary to explain what you are doing.  It's also a lot better to make changes when logged in under a user name, and I recommend you get one if you haven't done so already.  One advantage is that you will have a personal talk page all your own, that people can use to discuss your changes, possibly instead of just reverting them if they don't get what you're doing.  When you are editing under an IP address, your address could change, and then your talk page would change, which is no good for communications.
 * I haven't looked at your other changes, but now I'm thinking I probably should! Time does not permit at the moment, but if someone else wants to give it a try, please do.  And if the editor I'm replying to doesn't come back to make the change as suggested, someone else should do it, as the change was legit after all. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have Glenn Povey's brick of dark matter book, with the facts therein it may be possible, with a bit of work, to get this article near to or at FAC. Then perhaps, we could have a Pink Floyd Featured Topic, with the Disco article as the parent, and the six FA/GA album articles as children? Parrot of Doom 21:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and changed the Piper Belgian chart position back to 28, with reference and explanation. Hopefully I haven't discouraged our IP contributor by taking over his work; it's hard to tell if completing it or leaving it (abandoning it) is more discouraging.  If you're reading this, please reply, so we'll know you're still here!  I'll look at your other changes and see if they can be reinstated. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Dark Side of the Moon, NZ, reinstated change from 6 to 1, supported by existing reference.
 * Animals, AUS, reinstated change from 3 to 2, supported when you go to the page for the album, "custom" reference added with explanation.
 * Animals, NZ, reinstated change from blank to 1, supported by existing reference.
 * The Wall, FRA, reinstated change from 92 to 1 using a different website reference taken from The Wall's page. The site we are using for French charts seems to only cover this album's re-entry in the charts in 2001/2.  It's likely that it didn't chart at all in 1980.
 * The Division Bell, ITA, did NOT reinstate change from blank to 1, no chart info for this album found at the site we're using for reference, and no Italian chart info shown at the album's article. This change was made from a different IP.
 * That's all of them! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do it easily and quickly
But A Nice Pair should be in the compilation chart/grid, not the box set one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.199.155 (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's there because it's a straight reissue of 2 albums, so nothing has been "compiled" or resequenced. In book publishing, this could be called an "omnibus", but I've never heard that phrase used in record releases.  You are right that it's not a box set.  Perhaps the heading could be changed to "Box set and other multiple-album repackages", or something simpler if anyone can suggest it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a compilation of old material, regardless of whether it was rereleased. A Nice Pair came out in 1974 if I'm not mistaken, well before the days of box sets, and included several tracks not on TPatGoD or SoS. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK issue of "A Nice Pair" was December 1973. The tracklist was identical to Piper/Saucer; there were no bonus tracks. On my copies, the matrix numbers are YAX 3419-2/YAX 3420-5 for Piper; YAX 3633-3/YAX 3634-6 for Saucer; YAX 3419-1/YAX 3420-1/YAX 3633-1/YAX 3634-3 for ANP. That is to say, A Nice Pair was struck from unchanged masters. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The North American edition has an altered version of Piper, so it would be okay to have a tracklist for that, or anything that is not a duplication of info found in another article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Looking at the original version of The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, it's clear that the UK and USA versions were very different, with only eight tracks in common (the USA version omits "Astronomy Domine", "Flaming" and "Bike" in favour of "See Emily Play") - and the playing order of those eight is also completely changed. Perhaps the USA version of A Nice Pair was an attempt to bring the tracklist more in like with the British version? -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's explained in the article; the album was an attempt at "reconstructing" the UK version from recordings Capitol USA had on hand, which were sometimes different or altered versions. Getting back to the original question, I guess the UK edition is a reissue of 2 albums and the USA edition is 1/2 compilation and 1/2 straight reissue of an album, though it was also a failed attempt at being the same as the UK edition.  This makes it hard to classify.  How about this... reissues aren't always exactly the same as originals, and are not called compilations as a result of being slightly different.  Since A Nice Pair (USA version) wasn't intended as a compilation, and one could even say the differences are "trivial" (apparently Capitol Records thought so), it is closer to a two-albums-in-one-package reissue than anything else. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

How about this, like I said the first time : it's not a box set. Period. The end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.199.155 (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody's disagreeing; the question is, what is it then, and how do we put it in the article? Feel free to contribute to the discussion! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a compilation. You have a compilation section there it can go in. I'm going to let you work the rest of it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.199.155 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Further review of box set standards
Why do we have track lists and personnel lists for the box set albums? Unless a box set has remixes unique to the set (and these don't), and since the articles already have a list of links pointing to the original albums, surely we can just say "see original albums for track lists, personnel, and other credits". Only credits that pertain to the box set packaging, such as new artwork and "compiler" credit (if any) should be in the box set articles. Shine On could have a track list for its bonus disc, which should never have been a separate article. I'm making this a proposal, and will post a notification on the talk pages of relevant articles, pointing here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. More often than not, the recording artists have no input or decision making involved in this, if any communication at all. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it has been established that the group did authorize the box sets (though not certain compilations, Works being a primary example), but anyway I don't see the relevance to the proposal. I'm not proposing removing the articles, just reducing duplicated information. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify what I said, I meant that since the band generally has nothing to do with a compilation album (besides a nod of the head and a cash of the cheque), they shouldn't be part of the credits for it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  04:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We're probably coming to the same conclusion from different angles. My proposal is for multi-disc set reissues of entire albums, not compilations.  The "personnel" section of an article shows who played what, and should not be omitted just because the artist had minimal involvement in the compilation or reissue process.  Furthermore, we can't generalize; artists could have full control over reissues, and PF probably did so on their two big box sets.  My proposal has to do with removing duplicate information when an entire album is reissued, as covered in a different article from the original edition's. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed in full. Track and personnel lists for box sets are unwieldy and redundant. The one positive I can imagine is that the Personnel list for Oh, By The Way theoretically lists everyone who has every performed on a Pink Floyd album. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wot, including roadie Alan on Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast? -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, they forgot about Alan, but they did include Seamus, the school choir on "Brick", and the Sallyann band (personnel and instruments) on "Jugband Blues". (But they strangely left out the entire orchestra and choir from "Atom Heart Mother".)  I also notice the "production" section includes credits that are mostly particular to the box set (which should stay), but then throws in a couple of credits from The Wall (which don't belong), and then, of course, "Alan Parsons - engineering" (ditto). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the change: removed duplicated info, and merged The Early Singles into Shine On. The Pink Floyd template and comp album chain links have also been updated. The discography article (this one) did not need to be updated. I'm not certain if the production credits remaining pertain to the box sets, or individual albums. Any pertaining to the latter should be removed. If anyone can check this, please do so. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on recent changes by Mixplusik
Most of these look good. But there are a couple that keep getting changed ("perennials"?) and I suspect the latest changes aren't going to stop them from being changed again.
 * "Flaming" changed from "non-album version" to "Piper at the Gates of Dawn"; Pink Floyd fans usually refer to this alternate take as the "American single version" and there will likely be objections to stating it's taken from the album. Can you explain why you made this change?
 * "Us and Them" as a double A-side: I don't like the term "double A-side" as it's nonsense; the record isn't physically different from a typical single, and isn't likely to have both sides marked as side A; it just means that both sides charted. I presume you feel that way too, so it was good to address the problem.  But now it looks like these are two separate singles, which is probably going to regarded as unsatisfactory, and a magnet for further revisions.  Maybe we could say "(B-side of above)" under the second  title.  However there are some who claim "Time" was actually the A-side (therefore I suspect the label actually has no side number markings).  How can this be resolved?  "other side of above"?  "dark side of above"? (just kidding on that one.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though a discussion was already opened I went ahead and reverted the recent changes to the singles section because there were just too many factual errors that shouldn't be allowed to stand and these have been discussed before. As far "Time" and "Us and Them", that's one record and should only have one listing. I would just list it as "Us and Them" since that's the side that charted. Piriczki (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Piriczki, when reverting, please keep at least these informations that are correct, for example the chart placings... Now I will have to check them and the references all over again. — мıхᴘlusıӄ (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Piriczki, after you received a reply to your post, you added another line (about Us and Them being the only side that charted). You shouldn't do that, as it can change the context of the reply.  Add it as a new reply.  If you look at Mixplusik's changes again, you will see he found a chart position for "Time" on Hot Mainstraim Rock Tracks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A Knight Who Says Ni, here is my explanation:
 * I changed the original album of "Flaming" to The Piper... because many other artists have put out singles from an album in a different form (radio remixes or other versions/recordings) - still they were singles from an album. Example: Heather Nova released the album Oyster in 1994. Two years later she re-recorded one of its songs, "Truth and Bone," and released it as the third single from that album. Therefore I think that "Flaming" was a single taken from The Piper...
 * "Us and Them" and "Time": I'm not sure but I think that there were two separate releases - the first would be "Us and Them" coupled with "Time" (both on the A-side) and the second - "Time" with "Us and Them" on the B-side (probably released in different countries, probably one of these only as a promo). Allmusic states that "Time" was never released as a single in the U.S. but the Hung Medien chart pages claim the other way.
 * More about double A-sides: Most artists' discographies have double A-sides listed as separate songs (see this for example - sorry but I couldn't come up with any other page). The point of doing so is really simple - some countries get only one of these tracks, on some charts they chart separately. Where they chart together, it's shown by using rowspan and noting it below. Where they chart separately, it's easy to put the separate chart positions. Example below:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Year ! Single !style="width:3em;font-size:75%;line-height:1.3;"| Chart X !style="width:3em;font-size:75%;line-height:1.3;"| Chart Y ! Album
 * rowspan="2" align="center" width="40"|2100
 * "Song 1" 1
 * rowspan="2" align="center"|30
 * align="center"|25
 * rowspan="2"|Some Album
 * "Song 2" 1
 * align="center"|8
 * colspan="5"| 1 "Song 1" was released as a double A-side with "Song 2" in country X.
 * }
 * I hope my explanation is sufficient... If you agree I'd like to change the article back to my version. — мıхᴘlusıӄ (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * colspan="5"| 1 "Song 1" was released as a double A-side with "Song 2" in country X.
 * }
 * I hope my explanation is sufficient... If you agree I'd like to change the article back to my version. — мıхᴘlusıӄ (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope my explanation is sufficient... If you agree I'd like to change the article back to my version. — мıхᴘlusıӄ (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that what you changed these to, are more common standards at Wikipedia, even though you have found some examples. (For one assertion, you found one example to show it's more common, and then said, "sorry but I couldn't come up with any other page", so I don't see why you think it's common.)  I am certain other editors are going to change these two things again, and that's my biggest concern.  I'm trying to suggest a solution to prevent that.  Something needs to be changed.  Flaming's source needs to be something like "Piper at the Gates of Dawn (alternate single version)" or "non-album version (of track from Piper at the Gates of Dawn)", and even then I'm betting other editors would think this is unnecessary and change it, but at least it would be an attempt to accomodate both sides and present the information in a way which is complete and not misleading.
 * As for "Us and Them" and "Time", I'm not aware of their being issued on separate singles in other countries, and the fact that we only have chart info for the US on both tracks makes me wonder if they were released as singles anywhere else.
 * Regarding the info you got about the latter single from two websites, I think you are misinterpreting them. There was only one US release.  Capitol Records does not usually mark their sides A and B, and both sides charted, and this has led to different presumptions as to which is the A-side.  No release issued both tracks on the A-side (i.e. two tracks on the same side of the record; that's what I was getting at by "double A-side" being a silly name, as this is what it implies), and neither website source is saying the other track wasn't on the other side of the single they talk about.  You also said you thought a later release was "probably released in different countries, probably one of these only as a promo" - that's a lot of probablies, and I say both are wrong.  It's great that you're trying to do research before making changes, but your changes seem to be based more on your guesswork than your research.
 * As for saying to Piriczki, "Now I will have to check them and the references all over again", you do realize you can open a previous page of this article from the history page, and copy/paste parts of your previous changes back in? Your changes are not lost. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A further note or two: Goldmine reference books are usually complete for USA releases, and they show only one edition of the single (Harvest 3832), and it states "Time" as the A-side (which as I said before is conjecture, even when it comes from Goldmine). Allmusic's statement that "Time" was never issued as a single, can therefore be regarded as an error.  Regarding the format which you illustrated in your reply, the problem is that the chart only shows one line per song, implying one line per single, so the format you used is misleading.  Even with a footnote, the footnote would be somewhat separated from the entry, so that would not be sufficient.  Since you have found a chart position that only applies to one side, I understand why you want to make the two titles as separate lines.  You need to find a way to do it that doesn't mislead.  As I suggested before, just put a little note under one title that it's the other side of the title above, and that should do it.
 * Regarding Piriczki's removal of "Jugband Blues" saying (in the edit summary) "(it) was never a single", you can't go by sources that only list USA and UK singles. Many additional Pink Floyd singles were released in other countries, especially in Europe.  We had discussions about this a year ago, and unfortunately someone insisted on removing all European singles, refusing to believe they exist, even though in some cases the Wikipedia article for the song actually showed a European single cover in the infobox!  I believe this track really was a single in Europe, and we have (or had) a chart postition for it from Norway.  Unfortunately there seems to be no online coverage of their foreign singles, that I can find. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this discussion is a little old now, but I hope you don't mind my input on "Flaming". I mentioned this same info over on the page for A Nice Pair.  I believe the confusion of a "single mix" or "radio edit" of "Flaming" came about because this song was released as a single in the USA in 1967, despite not being included on the American version of Piper at the Gates of Dawn.  To a lot of ears, this single sounded different, but in actuality it is the same as the version found on mono versions of Piper.  There are not significant differences between most mono and stereo Piper tracks, but the slide whistle and other sound effects are pushed way to the front on the mono version.  I think that most people, at least early on, had only heard the stereo version of Piper, and then when they heard this single of "Flaming", they thought it was a unique mix.  But by comparing my original USA copy of A Nice Pair--the liner notes state that it took "Flaming" from the USA single--and the mono CD from the Piper 40th anniversary set, it's clear that they are the same mix, in mono.  I do agree with you that it's not required to mention in any case that any appearance of "Flaming" is a "radio version" or a "single edit", as the version put on a single is the same version on the album--just the mono version of the album.  Hope this helps; I know the discussion has been dead for a while and maybe it's a moot point now.  I just thought I'd give my theory as to why some insist that there is a different mix of "Flaming" on the single. Leamanc (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

FL?
What's keeping this article from becoming a Featured List? If we (well, I haven't done anything on this one) can get this promoted, that opens the door to a pretty nice Pink Floyd Featured Topic. If any stats are missing, or need replacing with a better source, I can probably sort that out. Parrot of Doom 16:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well a few bits and pieces, it would seem. I've just gone through the article comparing the US and UK releases to Grant Povey's book, and found quite a few mistakes.  Obvious errors like dates and chart positions I've corrected.  Less obvious things, like singles listed in this article that aren't listed in Povey's book, I've added cite requests to.  I think some of the entries may be slightly confused - I found quite a few promotional only releases in there, which of course wouldn't have been sold to the public.  Should they remain?  I've added hidden comments next to each instance. Parrot of Doom 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that someone nominated this disco: Featured list candidates/Pink Floyd discography/archive4. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bootleg Recording
Should some of the bootleg available through Pink Floyd fan web site be mentioned on this page? Like the 'Cruel but fair' Recording from 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.167.58 (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, discographies shouldn't contain bootlegs, see WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Trustworthiness of InfoDisc French discography?
A number of Wikipedia discography articles refer to this site: http://www.infodisc.fr/Bilan_P.php (choose Pink Floyd from the drop down menu)

1970-01-17 	 57 	 More (Astronomy Domine) 1972-07-13 	 36 	 Free Four 1973-03-19 	 6 	 Money 1974-01-08 	 71 	 Money 1975-09-13 	 2 	 Shine On You Crazy Diamond (part 1) 1975-10-04 	 15 	 Have A Cigar 1976-01-01 	 55 	 Shine On You Crazy Diamond (part 1) 1977-02-18 	 6 	 Sheep 1977-03-04 	 34 	 Pigs On The Wing 1978-03-24 	 46 	 Animals 1979-12-07 	 1 	 Another Brick In The Wall (Part 2) 1980-01-04 	 8 	 Another Brick In The Wall (Part 2) 1980-07-18 	 32 	 Run Like Hell 1982-09-03 	 70 	 When The Tigers Broke Free 1983-04-02 	 5 	 Not Now John 1987-10-04 	 18 	 On The Turning Away 1988-01-03 	 29 	 On The Turning Away 1988-02-14 	 60 	 Learning To Fly 1994-04-24 	 22 	 Take It Back 1994-09-25 	 3 	 High Hopes 1995-01-01 	 19 	 High Hopes 2009-07-27 	 83 	 See Emily Play

I am tempted to incorporate its entries for pre-1984 Pink Floyd singles in France, but is it reliable? Looking at the list, I note some of the peak chart positions are not in line with lescarts.com Can anyone familiar with Syndicat national de l'édition phonographique (SNEP) explain which of these two sites (if any) is trustworthy?

It seems Have A Cigar c/w Shine On You Crazy Diamond (part 1) was released as a single in France, as was Pigs on the Wing c/w Sheep ... no idea why the A & B sides appear as separate entries though!

Mlindroo (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the others but infodisc.fr is not a reliable source for earlier chart data. Piriczki (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

add new Pink Floyd single
http://www.deezer.com/artist/5608520 check it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.102.206.35 (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The wall album sales
This really is the best selling pink floyd album in the US with sales of 23 million although it is a double album it was only counted once for each sale by the RIAA as it is under 100 minutes. Simon P
 * No it isn't, it's counted by the RIAA as a double album and its US sales are 11.5 million. 88.104.17.79 (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't More under soundtracks?
If we are going to separate out soundtrack albums from studio albums surely More should be under that heading? Dumbledad (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits contrary to style guidelines
Recently, user:Bezyjoon (talk/contributions) made a series of edits (see here) that are contrary to the Manual of Style as well as WikiProject Discographies/style, including improper capitalization, unnecessary bold text, duplicating the date of release, and re-arranging the live albums out of chronological order. Without any edit summaries explaining these changes and considering the user's history of disruptive editing, I reverted to the previous long-standing version of the article. My edit was reverted and I was threatened with a block without further notice (see here). Other editors are invited to comment here on which version of the article is preferred and possibly revert to the previous version of the article if that is the consensus. Piriczki (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits contrary to style guidelines
Recently, user:Bezyjoon (talk/contributions) made a series of edits (see here) that are contrary to the Manual of Style as well as WikiProject Discographies/style, including improper capitalization, unnecessary bold text, duplicating the date of release, and re-arranging the live albums out of chronological order. Without any edit summaries explaining these changes and considering the user's history of disruptive editing, I reverted to the previous long-standing version of the article. My edit was reverted and I was threatened with a block without further notice (see here). Other editors are invited to comment here on which version of the article is preferred and possibly revert to the previous version of the article if that is the consensus. Piriczki (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

False and Invalid statements and Reasonings !!
It's much better before you initiate an Edit War, you consider these things :

First, I don't remember anywhere in the "WikiProject Discographies/style" page, anthing is stated that the Album names should NOT be in Bold !!!

Second, If you had read the "WikiProject Discographies/style page" carefully, you would have remember this statement in the Sample Section :

"Ultimately, the exact formatting and content of such tables depend on what's best for individual articles; see the Ignore all rules section below."

Third: Since the very first time which I used wikipedia only as a viewer, I have seen dozens of pages by other users which has used the exact same format which I used in my edit, AND NOBODY NEVER got in an EDIT WAR with them to change the format that they used !!!

Forth: The reason I re-arranged the Live Albums is that, everyone who has a little information about music industry knows that for the LIVE albums, what's matter is the day the actual Live Concert took placed, NOT the date that the Album has been released !!! (Another reason that the releasing date is not a good choice at all, is that the Album could be released in different times in different countries ! )

Fifth: I really can not understand what is your problem with my edits !! The way I changed the format, makes the page much much more elegant and shapely and neat, and it's not only my idea. I have asked about it from 14 people who all have contributed to wikipedia, and they ALL agree with me !! If you don't like this format, this is your personal problem !!

Sixth: in your last post, you asked other editors to comment about their preference, but NOONE commented anything against it, so you had to change back my edit for the THIRD time !!! All I can say is that It's really very very puerile !!

Bezyjoon (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits contrary to style guidelines
Recently, user:Bezyjoon (talk/contributions) made a series of edits (see here) that are contrary to the Manual of Style as well as WikiProject Discographies/style, including improper capitalization, unnecessary bold text, duplicating the date of release, and re-arranging the live albums out of chronological order. Without any edit summaries explaining these changes and considering the user's history of disruptive editing, I reverted to the previous long-standing version of the article. My edit was reverted and I was threatened with a block without further notice (see here). Other editors are invited to comment here on which version of the article is preferred and possibly revert to the previous version of the article if that is the consensus. Piriczki (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, there is no such thing as "a block without further notice". Whenever you request that a user be blocked, you have to notify the user of the request, and the administrator must give the user ample time to make their case. Also, I can't imagine that a user would ever be blocked for disruptive editing on a single article; there are much better ways of handling that sort of situation. Bezyjoon was just using scare tactics.
 * Anyway, this matter doesn't really merit discussion here, since as noted Bezyjoon's edits are contrary to the Wikiproject guidelines; in other words, there already is a consensus against his changes. The guidelines can of course be changed, but a consensus to do so must be formed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies or some other broader discussion page, not on the discussion page for one specific article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There were no digital downloads in the 1970s.
The information for album releases in the 1970s should not include "CDs and digital downloads". This page is meant to be historical information. To indicate the current formats you would want to be talking about a current release. Hope someone taking care of this page corrects this APDEF (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pink Floyd discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507235832/http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_P.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Album_P.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621054859/http://www.infodisc.fr/Certif_Album.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Certif_Album.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330223059/http://infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=500 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=500
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150715210908/http://infodisc.fr/Bilan_P.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Bilan_P.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130030454/http://www.infodisc.fr/Single_Certif.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Single_Certif.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pink Floyd discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927232830/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=0 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Live at Pompeii?
Wondering why Live at Pompeii does not feature, since that album sits proudly in my CD collection FimusTauri (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pink Floyd discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110123014717/http://www.theufo.org/ufo_club_shop.asp to http://www.theufo.org/ufo_club_shop.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130824010716/http://infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=950 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=950
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823071846/http://infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=150 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=150
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823234214/http://infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=700 to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_Album.php?debut=700
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130721081003/http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/oldchart.asp?chartNum=1291&chartKind=A to http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/oldchart.asp?chartNum=1291&chartKind=A

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Endless River is not a compilation
As the title says, this album is not a compilation about despite the fact that it listed as one here. I had the same issue on the album’s own page. Could someone move it the studio album section please? Maffman (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All done, surprised it was allowed to go on like this for weeks, why would anyone want to go out of their way to move it?? EL Foz87 (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Records vs albums
To clarify this set of edits, the Bloomberg source says "250 million records", not albums. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Granted. But they were hardly ever a "singles band." Most of these will have been albums? Perhaps a better source exists. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Where are the /ation sets?
I came here looking for the full list of the 2016-17ish /ation box sets. How are they not here? Jbsegal (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean The Early Years 1965–1972, obviously (which I had never heard of before now). So it's notable enough to have an article… - dcljr (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

More missing entries
There was a box set released in 1979 called The First Eleven which was the first 11 albums in 12" vinyl format in their original sleeves packaged together in a big black box, with DSOTM and WYWH as picture discs. Might be worth adding to the Box Set section.

They also had a track "Embryo" on a Harvest compilation double album "Picnic -- a breath of fresh air" that never saw light of day again until many years later, might be worth adding in the section at the bottom with Zabriskie Point. --Matt Westwood 23:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)