Talk:The Best of the Pink Floyd

Untitled
According to All Music Guide, this album was released in 1970. RedWolf 05:48, May 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the album was likely released prior to Meddle, because the cover picture appears in the centre of the Meddle booklet. If it is indeed 1970, then is it before or after AHM? - Fizscy46 02:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * Now please undo your recent edits. Andy Mabbett 08:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good find, but you could have put it in a less matter-of-fact way. - Fizscy46 16:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think this was an "unauthorized" release. It came out on EMI/Harvest.  It was a budget cash-in release.


 * It's a bit of a collector's item because it's the only place to find "Apples and Oranges" in stereo. --Sojambi Pinola 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, this link, posted above, claims that the record was originally released in Holland in 1970 at "Best of Pink Floyd." --Sojambi Pinola 02:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More evidence that this was initially released in 1970. --Sojambi Pinola 02:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have the German copy, and it's cover is nothing like either of the other two on the page. Should I upload a picture? -Heroicraptor 22:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article should be deleted, the album is out of print - who cares about it? - Ummagumma23 15:42 1 April 2007.
 * The people that edited this article surely care. Did you make a poll to support your assertion? If you think that it's unworthy, you can nominate it for deletion. Doktor Who 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheBestofthePinkFloyd.jpg
Image:TheBestofthePinkFloyd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...
I know this isn't the right place ta ask this, but is this compilation ever released on CD?

No it has never been released on CD and never will be —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ummagumma23 (talk • contribs).

Thank you (I am the same person who asked this). I knew Wikipedia is not for asking questions like this, but I think it's an useful information and should be added to every article about a music album. Thanks.--212.149.208.22 12:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Best of the Pink Floyd
I have split this article into two; the "earlier edition" (which in my view is a different record altogether) is now a separate article: The Best of the Pink Floyd. BTW, it used to be that way a year ago, but the previous version of that article was poorly written, and had been removed and merged into Masters of Rock. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Article renamed
Masters of Rock (album) has been renamed to Masters of Rock (Pink Floyd album), but the work is not done. I have posted a bot request to have all links to this page updated, after which the old name should become a redirect to Masters of Rock, a disambiguation page. Just mentioning this so nobody complains that I didn't finish the task, or try to do it all manually. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the Allmusic template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links: --CactusBot (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC) --Cactus26 (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=Adyk0ikb6bb19

Julia Dream
According to this article ""Julia Dream" is... longer than the Relics stereo mix". However, the track timings are given as 2.28 within this article and 2.37 withing the Relics article. So, which one is correct? Stephenjh (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 19 November 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to The Best of the Pink Floyd (page mover nac) Flooded  with them hundreds  11:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Best of the Pink Floyd / Masters of Rock → ? – The article currently has two titles in one, which is not appropriate as per WP:COMMONNAME. In some releases, this album was titled Masters of Rock, and in others it was titled The Best of the Pink Floyd. As per guidelines, we need to pick one for the title (although both can be mentioned in the lead sentence). I'm not sure which one is more appropriate (even the band's official website lists both!), so we should discuss here which is better. – Dream out loud (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to: The Best of the Pink Floyd (1970 album) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for the disambiguator because there's no other album with that title. The Best of the Pink Floyd would be fine.  But to form a consensus—why would you chose that title over the other? – Dream out loud  (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's a need in this case, as I (and I'm sure others) would think of this album when thinking of a Pink Floyd album called "The Best of Pink Floyd". So I support the move to The Best of the Pink Floyd (1970 album)  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Move to: - The Best of the Pink Floyd (1970 album) per . -  FlightTime Public  ( open channel ) 15:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to: The Best of the Pink Floyd, which is the album's original title and is unique, so I can't see any reason to use something else. Note "the" - this is not the same as The Best of Pink Floyd, so serves as sufficient natural disambiguation. Hatnotes to disambig pages will be sufficient for people who end up on the wrong page.  TSP (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to: The Best of the Pink Floyd per . Coldcreation (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to: The Best of the Pink Floyd per . Hatnote should be sufficient to avoid confusion. Popcornduff (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to: The Best of the Pink Floyd, to sum why : there is no other album with the name, a hatnote can avoid the confusion and it's the band's original title and the name 'Masters of Rock' can be mentioned in the lead so this is the best compromise. JC7V (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reprocessed stereo
No fewer than five of the tracks on this LP are "fake" stereo, reprocessed from the original mono masters by applying different equalisation to each channel: Arnold Layne, Candy And A Currant Bun, It Would Be So Nice, Julia Dream and See Emily Play. So it seems a bit strange to only mention this with regard to Julia Dream, especially as it isn't referenced. I've tried to find a usable reference but the only ones I can see are user-generated. Anyone who knows of a proper reference, please add this information. AFAIK none of these five tracks apart from Julia Dream have ever been released in true stereo mixes. Freewheeling frankie (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)