Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd/Archive 2

April 2008 - June 2010

Pink Floyd discography
I've been working a lot with Pink Floyd discography and i'm wondering why the page is crap. Can somebody help me with fixing the page.--Freedom (song) (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. You might bring up specific concerns on Talk:Pink Floyd discography. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

featured Article
Pink Floyd discography has been nominated for featured article. Is it possible i can get som help with the article. --Freedom (song) (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Song Articles, esp. The Division Bell tracks
I would like to put in my two cents that interpretations be removed from the articles regarding songs on The Division Bell and more citations of the band's comments regarding the songs be added. There are numerous sources in which Gilmour basically states that he refuses to say what the songs are about, but he gives various hints. Anything that is not a direct quote is pure speculation and may actually hinder the ability of the reader/listener to form his or her own unique ideas about the music, which is exactly what the band seems to prefer - leaving the songs open to interpretation.

And example of this is the page for "Take it Back." The introduction is ripe with speculative meanings of the song, none of which have ever been confirmed or encouraged by the band. --Chinagreenelvis (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Publius Enigma
Some of us have been having fun with the Publius Enigma article. I've created a scratch pad to up the quality on the article to a possible feature status? Don't know...

In all honesty, I personally think that it is a ring in the nose that gets strung along, buuuuut.... it is very interesting.

So I appeal to anyone interested to have some fun, find some wiki-info and go to User:Pmedema/Publius Enigma and scratch it up. We've been keeping the discussion at Talk:Publius Enigma. If you remove anything please do so with a strikeout so that we can see what's going on. --Pmedema (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tribute Bands
I think an area which needs lots of work is tribute bands and deciding what to do with them. It needs to be decided whether or not tribute bands will be accepted and linked back to this project. If that's the case it opens the door for every single garage Pink Floyd cover band out there. There might be other options available.

But either way I think that if tribute bands are going to be associated with the project a master list of tribute bands along with links to their websites is in order. The reason for this is that individual tribute band pages are excessively difficult to manage. (See my comments on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Pink_Floyd_Experience) So a master list that's constantly edited and kept up to date is the best solution I can offer at the moment.

Again though the biggest problem comes when deciding what (if any) amount of significance the project gives to tribute bands. The article aforementioned -is- linked back to the project page, but it should be noted for future contributors that this tribute page enforcement (if you will) should be done in all similar cases or not at all.

Again in my opinion the bigger issue that needs to be dealt with is what to do with tribute bands of these sort. Xfirestorm6 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The list of Pink Floyd tribute bands article is already monitored with strictness and scrutiny. Unless a band can pass WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC it can't have an article on Wikipedia. And if it can't have an article on Wikipedia then it can't be added to the list of PF tribute bands. At one time the list included a great number of nn acts and spam links. Someone took the time to clean them all out and now it is up to the project to keep all red links and embedded spam links out of the list. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops I didn't see the list. :) That's actually a pretty great system, seems to be working well. I'll look further into the pre-existing one for different ways I can contribute personally. Xfirestorm6 (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fletcher Memorial Home
I added a link to The Fletcher Memorial Home to explain Eric Fletcher Waters. It helps to explain the bitterness of the song. Pustelnik (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quality of The Division Bell Article
I have recently been editing The Division Bell article to bring it closer to Featured Status, as have I "adopted" it. I added the citations that it was previously lacking, but I do not know what else to add to make it good enough to be Featured. I am thinking of adding .ogg samples of the songs on the album and perhaps adding some free source versions of the often-praised booklet artwork. Any other ideas? I am not yet focusing on the individual song articles yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Mantis (talk • contribs) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Joined and...
I will be focussing on The Wall and parts of Dark Side Of The Moon. So if you want me to do Meddle improvements, in the words of Money:

Don't give me any of that do goody good (beep).

-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  16:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

PS

I know Wikipedia isn't censored but I'm not a sweary person, that alright with you, or do I need to hammer you today? XD

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A Treeful of Secrets
I have proposed deletion of this article, and also outlined some problems with it, if it is not to be deleted. Please see Talk:A Treeful of Secrets and respond there. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles being renamed left and right!
As I understand it, there should be a discussion before articles are renamed, especially when they are frequently edited by many contributors. In the last day, 3 Pink Floyd articles have been renamed with no prior discussion: Is he not better known as Richard Wright, the name he uses on all Pink Floyd releases up to and including The Division Bell? Is this not his professional name? If he changed it, when did that happen, and what work has he done under that name? The WP article doesn't say anything about a change to his professional name. I have a feeling he is "Rick" to his friends. The article should not have been renamed on that basis. The original UK album's cover actually says "soundtrack from the film MORE composed and performed by the pink floyd" - therefore, the use of lower case letters, aside from the film title which is in all-caps, is a typeface style and should not be taken as proper capitalization. The label of the UK edition (on my copy, but it should be noted that label typefaces can change from copy to copy, and can't be taken as official) says "Music From The Film More", which is also an improper way of capitalizing a title, but at least the word "Film" is capitalized here, as I think it should be, according to capitalization rules for titles. Now it's possible that capitalization rules are different in the UK, and it could be acceptable to use the word "film" in lower case letters in a title in this context, but I've never heard of it. Maybe someone from the UK could weigh in on this. But even if that were the reason, shouldn't this be stated somewhere in the edit summary, or in a discussion prior to the rename? Is this acceptable according to article naming rules? There is no endash on the computer keyboard, so it isn't something that most users would enter into a search box. That being the case, shouldn't an ordinary dash be used for article titles? It would be perfectly acceptable to use the endash in the body of the article.
 * Richard Wright (musician) changed to Rick Wright, done by User:Anthony Appleyard
 * Soundtrack from the Film More changed to Soundtrack from the film More, done by User:Dream out loud
 * London '66-'67 changed to London '66–'67, where the dash has been changed to an endash, done by User:Dream out loud

I'm seriously considering reverting these changes because they were done without discussion, and there is good cause to consider the previous names as the correct names. But I don't want to cause some bad feelings if we decide ultimately to keep these renames. I would like to see a discussion on each rename, to see what others think. And if anyone is considering renaming other articles, please announce it and ask for comment first. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 224 articles are assigned to this project, of which 77, or 34.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:



If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce
How would you feal about being a taskforce for the rock music project? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Project page clean-up requested
Wikiproject Pink Floyd isn't dead, but it doesn't look too healthy, either. On the project page there are no fewer than 7 red-links to things like a non-existent to-do list, a non-existent barnstar, an "advertisement" (this is not a request to re-create the latter two items!), obsolete help and WP pages, and a non-existent portal page. The portal link is also in the infobox that appears on the talk pages of all Pink Floyd articles, in red-link. It's kind of embarrassing!

To anyone who wants to take on fixing this, I suggest looking at other project pages to see which WP / help pages are typically referenced these days. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Pink Floyd
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Echoes (Pink Floyd song)
There is currently a discussion here concerning a graphic which has been added to the article to illustrate its dynamic range. Expert input would be appreciated. -- Rodhull andemu  13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Pink Floyd Newsletter?
If not, I'll help write!-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  17:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't that much activity on the project talk page, so I'm not sure how many people would be interested in a project newsletter. I'm presuming you don't mean a newsletter about Pink Floyd news, as that definitely doesn't belong on an encyclopedia.  Don't mean to be discouraging; if there is anything about Pink Floyd or recent edits and policies that you want to discuss or ask about, by all means, do it here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Article on Philosophy of Pink Floyd (or something like that)??
I'm probably not really the guy to write it, but I wonder if it would be a good idea for someone to write an article on the common themes of Floyd albums. I'm a fifteen-year-old mega-fan (I even have Profiles!) and would really be interested in reading this. This comparison is gonna sound a little off base, but there are some excellent articles relating to themes in The Simpsons dealing with Religion in The Simpsons and Politics in The Simpsons and I really think we could do that for the Floyd. I'd be happy to help, but I'm not sure I know everything. Thank you for your time, and let me know if there's anything I can do to help improve the articles! PinkFloyd69 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC) PinkFloyd69

Jon Carin
In the Jon Carin article, it says that Carin played most of the keyboards on The Division Bell. I'll go with it on Momentary Lapse, but I'm pretty sure Rick played more than him on TDB. Thoughts?PinkFloyd69 (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a shout...
Roger will play in Berlin next Monday: Brain Damage link-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  14:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Abbey Road Studios
I found a good quote by David Gilmour about why Pink Floyd recorded most of their albums at Abbey Road Studios, but I don't know where to put it. Any suggestions?Krobertj (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the quote?-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  23:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "We've always used it. We've done virtually every album there. I think it's pretty much a thing of habit but we do tend to use a lot of electronic facilities and some of the smaller studios just haven't got the equipment to cope with the various things we want to do. Unless you've got a good reason to go somewhere else, you don't go anywhere else, do you?" Krobertj (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:33, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd
nominated Pink Floyd for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tour articles for deletion
Pink Floyd French Summer Tour 1974 and Pink Floyd: British Winter Tour '74 1974 are nominated for deletion. As a farewell I already made my notes here. Maybe someone has additional sources or the time to work them into the articles. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  18:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see Obscured By Clouds Tour and Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here Tour 1975. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Song articles for deletion
Every Pink Floyd song currently has an article. Yesterday, over a dozen songs were AFD'ed (proposed for deletion). (This has happened before, and there have been discussions in the past as to whether we need an article for each. In the past, we have been able to resist these deletions.)  I checked each one, and found they were not just one-sentence stub articles, so I objected to each. Thanks go out to the admin who decided to speedy keep most of them. I think only two are still open. Please have a look and see if there is a way to improve and rescue these articles, or post your opinion on the AFD pages if you think they should be retained as is. (Taking the time now to improve the articles, would be a better choice.)
 * Articles for deletion/Stay (Pink Floyd song)
 * Articles for deletion/Obscured by Clouds (song)

And to the person who proposed the deletions: you should have posted this note on the project page at the time! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's still lots of fun around here, even after the JamesBurns deletion troops are gone with the wind... -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  22:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Chronology
After a quick fly-by on the More album I noticed (there anyways) that the chronology goes against the wp:album rule of studio-with-studio... live-with-with... compi-with-compi... soundtrack-with-soundtrack... etc-with-etc... Has this been discussed already. Why do some PF albums goes against the proper? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * More and also Obscured... are considered as "full" Floyd albums in all books I read. Reasons could be: Some material on the albums is different from the movies, if it's not all at least different mixes (btw: in the case of Waters' The Body the tracks were even completely re-recorded for the album release). Then the albums don't use old material, but only songs and sequences especially made for the movie. And, finally, the albums are far more famous than the movies. Nicholas Schaffner wrote something like Barbet Schroeder's early movies are mostly remembered because of their soundtracks, even in the light of the director's later fame in Hollywood. Zabriskie Point is not considered a full album as it also includes older works by other artists (and is more famous?). Ummagumma is not only a live album, but has also a studio half. Plus, it features songs from the (at the time in America) hard to find first two albums. This went as far as the version of "Astronomy Domine" on the American Nice Pair re-release of Piper and Saucerful contained the Ummagumma live version with Gilmour and not the studio version with Barrett. But please don't ask me why Relics is no regular album... ;-) And, well, don't ask me about the template on the bottom of the page... -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  17:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Pink Floyd's two soundtrack albums should be mixed in with their studio albums chronology, and don't see how their removal would be beneficial to readers using the links to surf through the main Pink Floyd albums. It's not inconsistent to put them in separate lists on the discography article, or in the bottom-of-page template.  Other artists could do it differently, because the circumstances are different.  Tangerine Dream, for example, issued a very large body of soundtrack albums, which came out on many different labels (licensed according to film rights rather than recording artist contracts), and albums usually came out when the films came out (which were often years after the music was recorded); therefore fitting their soundtrack albums into a studio album chronology would be a nightmare. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no evidence to add, but generally agree Soundtrack from the Film More and Obscured by Clouds are regular studio albums. The soundtracks in question:
 * The Committee – no album, so no succession box (or infobox)
 * Tonite Let's All Make Love in London – Pink Floyd soundtracks chronology succession box links to More, no preceeding album
 * More – Pink Floyd chronology (studio albums) succession box, with no soundtracks chronology succession box and no backlink to Tonite Let's All Make Love in London. This is broken.
 * Zabriskie Point (album) – no succession box
 * Obscured by Clouds – Pink Floyd chronology (studio albums) succession box
 * The easiest fix I can think of would be to eliminate the Pink Floyd soundtracks chronology succession, since it contains only one album. Tonite Let's All Make Love in London would either have no succession box, or be added to the Pink Floyd chronology sequence. Since Tonight is a multi-artist compilation, it should probably be treated the same as Zabriskie Point.


 * While some may argue the inconsistency, I would not change the album arrangement in the Pink Floyd template at page bottoms. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors have fiddled with the chronology links in the past, and I remember reverting someone's big change a few months ago to fit "Tonite..." into a Pink Floyd soundtracks chronology; perhaps my undo was incomplete. As has been stated, it should not be classified as a Pink Floyd album, as the original album only had one Pink Floyd song (and the reissue only has two, both of which are also available elsewhere), it does not merit inclusion in a Pink Floyd soundtrack chronology, if we had one.  Regarding "The Committee", it's an interesting inclusion as I'd never heard of it until recently, but there was definitely no soundtrack album for it, so it should not be included in any album chronology links. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool gents, thanks for the input. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Album lead sentences
I attempted to inject some consistency into the lead sentences of each of the band's studio albums.(edits I had to re-review a couple of times before I felt it looked right) I notived that the best article lead sentences were the one that avoided tagging the band with a specific genre. Watching the Pink Floyd-Meddle documentary whilst reviewing each of these article I noticed that there was a lot of overkill on the term 'progressive rock' when I looked at both the lead and the infobox. Some were a little inconsistent. From the documentary I get the feeling that the prog rock tag was something that the band were "lumped" into rather than one they actually earned themselves. I notice a trend with other acts to avoid specific terms and just go for the top genre "rock" in their individual openings. I felt it better not to pigeon-hole Pink Floyd with any specific descriptions at all so I left a genre out completely. (it was already gone in quite a few of the articles I reviewed anyways) If anyone feels that the band should be given a genre adjective they may go ahead and explain why here. I have noticed over the years that there is an ongoing battle between editors over nationality. Mainly between whether an artist is "English" vs whether an artist is "British." I have no opinion. Many of the Pink Floyd album articles didn't have a nationality at all so I just went with this for the other articles and started each with "X is a studio album by Pink Floyd, released in.. etc." One thing I did notice. Both DSoTM and WYWH are labelled as concept albums whereas Animals is not. Concept album is very loose when describing the first two mentioned. They certainly have a central theme. But, that being said, so does Animals. I wondered why this album is a studio album while the others (especially WYWH) are concept albums. Fair Deal (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never really followed that whole English/British thingy either. I am a Canadian or Canuck.. but get offended if anyone refers to me as anything other than a Maritimer... 'cos dats wot I be, by' :-D. I think the consistent leads look just peachy. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Relations Between Band Members
I've noticed that decently-sized portions of the Pink Floyd or related articles mention something about the relationships between the members of the band. On Roger Waters' page, for instance, a paragraph is donated to his attempts to repair things in the "Later Solo Years" section. And I am sure that there is a plethora of documents, sources, and interviews where each band member has discussed his relationship with one of the other members, as I am sure that similar sources could be found for David, Rick, and Nick. Considering that part of the band's legacy involved how they began to fall apart in the late '70s and early '80s, I think that this would be an important addition.

In my mind, what affirms that this would be beneficial is a paragraph I found in a short written documentary about The Dark Side of the Moon.

"After his acrimonious departure from the band over a decade later, Waters was given to scornful dismissals of his colleagues' lack of lyrical input on Pink Floyd's most successful album. For instance, in a 1993 interview with the Washington Post's Richard Harrington he scoffed: 'Nobody else in the band could write lyrics, there were no other lyricists after Syd left. David's written a couple of songs, but they were nothing special. I don't think Nick ever tried to write a lyric, and Rick probably did in the early days but they were awful.'"

This quote can be found here: (http://utopia.knoware.nl/users/ptr/pfloyd/interview/dark4.html)

This clearly describes Waters' relationship with the band members for at least a short period of time. Though the problems have been discussed on various pages, there have not been many direct quotes from the band members that describe how each bandmate felt about another. Given how their views have changed over the years, a brief overview should really be put in a new section on the Pink Floyd page, with links to similar, though more descriptive and personal, sections on the page of each band member. Does anyone else agree with this proposal? Krobertj (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this would be beneficial, if enough material can be found to produce a coherent paragraph. A quick search reveals the infamous "spent force creatively" quote of Roger's appears twice; on the main Pink Floyd page and again on The Final Cut.  I'm convinced there exists plenty more documented quotation which could be pulled together.  I'll keep an eye & ear open...   Careful With That Axe, Eugene  Talk  07:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd Bootlegs
Hey everyone. I thought I should drop by and let everyone know that I've started making articles for the bootleg albums of the band. So far I have finished Smoking Blues and Obscurity. I could use help putting the album covers in though. To be honest, I found the guidelines on the tags and giving an explanation for fair use to be a little confusing. I figured I should leave putting artwork in to more experienced Wikiers. The links to the artwork are in the references. Krobertj (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good show old sport. Zazaban (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured Topic
Now we have The Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album) at FA, and Meddle and The Final Cut (album) at GA, with Pink Floyd at GAN, and shortly The Wall also at GAN...what do we think about a Pink Floyd Featured topic? Parrot of Doom 15:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed album article name change (Best of / Masters of Rock)
Seeking approval, please comment on proposal here. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there was no reply, I have combined the two articles into The Best of the Pink Floyd / Masters of Rock as proposed. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics
Would anybody have the kindness of explaining why the lyrics for the songs are not present in the articles??? I did add one lyric the other day but someone removed it. Apart from being rude (or overzealous...) it would be an interesting add to the article thought. -- Tonilazaro (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. Copyright violations and NOT will provide the explanation you seek. For bonus explanation, see Wikimedia policy&mdash;since Wikipedia intends to create a GFDL-compliant document, it is important to avoid (as much as possible) quoting copyrighted material; to the extent that such material is needed, it must fall within Wikipedia's stringent fair use policy. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 14, 2010
The Dark Side of the Moon is WP:TFA on Thursday, can everyone keep an eye on it for vandalism, US spelling mistakes, etc please? Parrot of Doom 12:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Making the portal today
Will update here ..I will be Choosing FA and/or GA level articles only... You guys have any colors in mind???...I will start will back and white to match this -->User WPFloyd.... Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * UPDATE done PS that purge does not work all the time so to see all 3 selections just keep purging ..Had to use some b class articles ..anyways have fun guys..i hope it gets yo|u some editors !!

Template=   Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Icon is automatic now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC).

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 05:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A Momentary Lapse of Reason
TFA on 13 April. I don't expect much vandalism but there will certainly be some grumbling about Wright's position in the band. Parrot of Doom 09:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tips
Hello guys..Moxy here the guy that does the portals...We have made a Tip/guidelines section to help navigate Wikis vast rules!! Pls if y0u like add this to your project page if it apply to you guys here!!..Moxy (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Studio albums
I'm almost past caring now, but could anyone shed some light on this matter please? Also, if anyone could take a look at the discussion on the talk page of The Final Cut (album) that would be most appreciated, because right now I'm considering removing all Floyd albums from my watchlist. I'm rather sick and tired of defending these articles all by myself. Parrot of Doom 00:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I took it exactly where you asked me to take it. You aren't happy with the response you got there, so now you come here? And now you want to be done with Floyd articles cause you're "sick and tired of defending them all by myself". I read that as, "people keep editing them after I tell them not to". I don't understand your obsession with this, nor do I understand what is so difficult to explain. More and Obscured By Clouds are both studio albums, and both soundtracks. As far as The Final Cut, you're not defending an article. You're trying to keep it exactly the way you want it. You lamented having the discussion on 3 pages, yet you've now taken it to a fourth page.Mk5384 (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pink Floyd songs
I noticed while working on the Final Cut article that all PF songs had articles, even though some were clearly incapable of being developed beyond stubs. Per WP:NSONGS I was bold and redirected all but two of the FC songs to the album, after, of course, raising it on the album talk page and not getting any dissent. What do others think of this? Would it be applicable across the board? --John (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was only on the talk page for two days, and only 2 users responded. One said that, in their opinion, the specific song you mentioned ("One Of The Few") was notable, whilst opining that it may be appropriate to open a discussion (my emphasis) about the others. The other user (me), simply said that it would be more appropriate to raise that issue on the talk page of the article in question. Had I know that you intended to do what you did so soon, I certainly would have objected. I absolutely do not think that it would be "applicable across the board". I rather believe, that each article (including the redirected ones, which I feel should be returned), should be tagged with the appropriate proposal, and given a chance to be discussed.Mk5384 (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? --John (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Because, after reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion, I am firmly unconvinced that any of these articles qualify to be redirected without discussion.Mk5384 (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The articles weren't speedy deleted but redirected per the recommendations of WP:NSONGS. Can you give any rationale based on policy, on utility to our readers, or on consensus, that these articles are worth keeping? "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." (from WP:NSONGS) --John (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything at WP:NSONGS, that recommends such an action. Of course, I may very well be wrong, and if I am, please point out to me, where, at WP:NSONGS, it recommends redirecting articles that do not meet notability. All I saw, was the statement that not meeting notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. I really don't see what harm can come from erring on the side of caution, and returning the articles, whilst tagging them with redirect proposals.Mk5384 (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What would you say an article like Cluster One is adding to our project? What are its prospects for becoming a really good, well-sourced article? --John (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I would not. I hope that I have not mislead anyone here. It is not my position that these articles necessarily meet notability standards. But I would think it difficult, for anyone who may wish to do so, to prove notability after the fact. I think that the articles should have been tagged individually, which would have allowed editors to examine them, and the references used to build them. Then a more thorough decision of notability, or lack thereof, could have been made by the entire community, rather than a single admin.Mk5384 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in the answer to this question as well, recent cases at AN/I and AFD have reinforced quite clearly that not every song by a notable artist or band is notable by itself, as per standard practice. Why do you think that an exception should be made for Pink Floyd? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So far as I can see no argument based on the actual subject has been given at all. A merge here is a no-brainer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Glancing through some of the articles, a number of them seem to amount/have amounted to " is is a song by Pink Floyd on , written by . It  performed by Pink Floyd live." Following that there's generally a short paragraph of unreferenced text about the song's composition and/or meaning, basically amounting to OR. I'm not saying they're all like this, but several of the ones I flipped through were, and IMO they ought to be redirected to the album articles. I think the part WP:NSONGS that most often is overlooked is: "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I think that's the case with a lot of these Pink Floyd song articles. Just because the band is notable, or the album, doesn't mean that every song needs to have a separate article. Rather, covering the songs within the album article, and reserving separate articles for only the most notable ones, provides the best coverage for our readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know that this does "provide the best coverage for our readers". John mentioned Cluster One, and asked what the prospects are for it becoming a "really good, well sourced article". Whilst probably nil, how does redirecting it improve this encyclopaedia? Yes there's a fine article for the album The Division Bell], but how does getting rid of [[Cluster One improve it? That article, like the others, contains a bit more information about a specific song, which provides more information for our readers. I think that WP:IAR should take precedence over following notability guidelines to the letter. The redirects for The Final Cut do nothing to improve (or harm) that article. They only get rid of 11 articles that provided our readers with additional information.Mk5384 (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, let's use Cluster One as our test case: The article consists of 3 sentences, an infobox, and a personnel listing. All the text says is what album it's from, who wrote it, and that it was never performed live. What part of this couldn't be covered in The Division Bell article? The album article has a tracklisting, writing credits, and a personnel list, so all that remains is the sentence about how the song hasn't been performed live. Since that sentence is unreferenced, it's original research and should be cut. That leaves nothing in the Cluster One article that isn't already covered in The Division Bell article. Since there doens't appear to be anything additional to say about "Cluster One" that couldn't be included in the album article, what use is there in having a separate article for the song? None. The song should be redirected to the album article, as it does not provide any additional information. You asked "how does redirecting it improve this encyclopaedia? Yes there's a fine article for the album The Division Bell, but how does getting rid of Cluster One improve it?" Answer: Redirecting Cluster One may not directly improve The Division Bell, but that's because the Cluster One article does not contain any referenced information that is not already contained in the Division Bell article. Thus the Cluster One article is a completely useless stub, and redirecting it improves the encyclopedia by removing trivial, unreferenced coverage of a single song in favor of referenced, in-depth coverage of the album as a whole, which is more useful and informative to readers. IAR is not a carte blanche to ignore notability standards. For song articles to stand alone, it must be shown that they have received non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. That's the standard on Wikipedia across the board, and is part of our core policies: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." --IllaZilla (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've redirected all but two of the Division Bell songs on the basis of the above discussion. Thank you. --John (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why stop there? I'm sure you could redirect almost the entire Pink Floyd catalouge, by those standards. Then you could do Led Zeppelin; The Beatles-pretty soon we'll be able to chop this down to the size of the types of encyclopaedias that they have in libraries! You're just redirecting articles at will for shits and giggles at this point. Shameful.Mk5384 (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reduction ad absurdum has its place. Here is not the place. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, he's redirecting articles for valid reasons which others have agreed with, not to mention it's completely in line with Wikipedia policy. Creating stub articles for every song, without demonstrating notability or even having much of anything to say about them, just to bolster Pink Floyd as being on par with the Beatles, is fancruft activity.  I recall this question has come up on talk pages about the Beatles, asking why every one of their songs needs to have an article.  The answer that was given, is so much has been written and analyzed about all their songs in great detail, you can always find articles and meticulous information to write about them, and properly cite, even if the songs are minor.  But if there were a Beatles song which, for some reason, all the critics have ignored, and have avoided writing about, then that song should not have an article.  We should not be using Wikipedia to try to prove Pink Floyd are as important as the Beatles; that's not the point of having song articles anyway.  The question is, on a case by case basis, does each song (whether it be by Pink Floyd, the Beatles, or Justin Timberlake) have enough information that we can dig up from reliable sources, to make a decent article with more detail than can comfortably fit in the album article.  It has been acknowledged some Pink Floyd songs do not, and those are the ones we should redirect until someone can do research and find enough information to expand it to an article again.  "Shameful" you say, but without elaboration.  If you mean some important information got dropped by the merge, feel free to put it back into the album article.


 * As an anecdote on the side, one of the first Wikipedia articles I wrote came about when an editor complained about there being too many stub articles for Pink Floyd songs, and declared he had picked a "hopeless" one (in his opinion) and redirected it. It so happens the one he picked, was one I thought could be expanded.  The song was "Chapter 24", which I'd heard has lyrics based on the I Ching, and I'd always kind of wondered what it all meant, so I decided to research the original I Ching text (which I'd never read before), find the passages used in the song, and come up with an analysis.  Then I came back to the discussion and proudly declared I had "rescued" the article, and admonished the other editor for redirecting the one article that really could be researched and expanded.  The article has since had an original research tag put on it, which I guess it deserves, but at least it's still there.  The point is, you could do the same kind of thing for articles that you feel could be expanded, rather than complaining that someone else should do it, or saying the articles should stay without improvements, which is what you seem to be suggesting. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that my post went to the point of being reductio ad absurdum;it certainly wasn't meant as such. The point I was trying to make was that these articles should have been tagged: notability
 * This would have alerted users that the articles were going to be redirected. It was unfair to make a unilateral decision to redirect these long standing articles without giving others the chance to at least attempt to prove notability.Mk5384 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as I see it, John was asking about what should be done, and others encouraged him to go with the redirect, so I don't think he was in the wrong. Tagging is done when there is a good likelihood of the article being expanded.  Do you anticipate that will happen any time soon for every Division Bell song?  Since nothing is being permenantly deleted, no harm done.  As has been said quite a few times already, these articles don't actually have any content that is not duplicated in the album article, so what is the harm in redirecting them?  I don't want to second-guess your reasons for objecting to the redirecting, but if one were to advocate permenantly keeping articles for every Pink Floyd song, whether or not they are appropriate, for the purpose of establishing the group's importance, and if all of us were to go along with that, I would suggest all it establishes is an overzealous fanbase.  (I'm not trying to get personal here, but you do have to realize how it looks... on all of us!) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing overzealous here. As far as I'm concerned The Division Bell is a mediocre recording by a few fellows who shamelessly userped the name of Waters' band. So if anyone thinks that I have any personal agenda when it comes to Division Bell songs, let's put that to rest. The fact that I'm a Floyd fan is as irrevalant as the fact that I don't consider The Division Bell to be a Pink Floyd album. I objected to one user making a unilateral decision to redirect the Final Cut songs. He left a message on the Final Cut talk page for 2 days, and got a total of 2 responses; both of which supported a discussion (my emphasis) about possible redirects. As much as I hate The Division Bell, I objected to those redirects for the same reason. They should have been tagged first. Whilst I claim a bit of knoweledge about the band, I am not even a member of WPFLOYD. Those that are (or anyone else) should never do anything here as a fan of The Floyd, but rather only as someone with knoweledge of the subject.Mk5384 (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't answer the question of why you are asking for tagging first when someone decides a redirect is appropriate. I am not aware of a "tag first, redirect later" policy for an article that serves no purpose (i.e. contains nothing that is not also in the album article, and I still think this, rather than notability, is the issue with these song articles).  I told an anecdote above where a song article was redirected, and I restored and improved it.  The fact that it was possible to do this, does not mean the editor who redirected did anything wrong.  He was right to redirect a pointless stub article in its original state, and because the article was still there in history, it was easy for me to restore it, which is what I meant by "no harm done" in redirecting.  My question for Final Cut songs is the same as for Division Bell songs: do you really think someone is going to hop to and expand every song article for the album, just because someone adds tags?  If an editor were ready to do that, why didn't they do it in the however many years the song articles have been here?


 * I really think we should move on from blaming someone for jumping the gun (I don't think they did), and ask where do we go from here. Do we want to scrap the WikiProject's unwritten policy of having an article for every Pink Floyd song?  (The only justification for saying don't scrap it, is if someone intends, right now, to greatly expand every song article.  I'm doubtful this can be done, and I don't see anyone volunteering.)  Is redirecting appropriate?  (I say yes, but it should be done one article at a time with care, to make sure any information that is only in the song article, is transferred to the album article.  Feel free to oversee this task, if someone else does it.)  Should we tag the articles immediately, and redirect at some scheduled future time?  (My answer is no, the point of having a Pink Floyd WikiProject is we can schedule things from here if need be; we don't need to use tags in articles to organize our work.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to clarify my position numerous times. As it is still being misunderstood, there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing to post here.Mk5384 (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It certainly wasn't my intention to win an argument with persistency. Part of the problem is you and I are talking about different reasons for redirecting (or not): you mention notability (which would apply to the question of whether certain information should be on Wikipedia at all, which is not the issue); I have talked about content (or lack thereof) and necessity (criteria) for having separate articles.  You also complained about lack of consensus, but others have said it was a no-brainer, and the editor who did it, did ask first, so I don't see the action as improper.  Anyway, I still say that if you are concerned about saving the articles from redirecting by expanding and improving them, that can be done any time.  And if you're concerned about information being lost, you can recheck the work and fix anything done wrong. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I note that, in redirecting Cluster One to The Division Bell, John moved none of the information from the former to the latter, and thus it is now lost to our readers. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw c'mon guys, "Cluster One", when it was an article, had exactly three sentences of prose. Here is a link to what it looked like:  and here is its complete prose (pardon me if I don't format it): ""Cluster One", an instrumental, is the first track on Pink Floyd's 1994 album, The Division Bell. It is also the first Pink Floyd song credited to Wright/Gilmour since "Mudmen" from the 1972 album Obscured by Clouds.  It was never performed live by the band, though portions of it were included in the sound collage tape played before their 1994 concerts.  Personnel: David Gilmour - Guitars; Nick Mason - Drums, percussion; Rick Wright - Piano, Kurzweil synthesizers."  (There is also a "This article does not cite any references or sources" tag at the top.)  There is nothing at all notable about it being the first song since 1972 to be written by this combination of two people.  Its non-use in live performances is not significant.  Its use in a sound collage is not significant.  The band is not playing instruments that they don't usually play.  All this info was written just for the sake of pulling out a few random facts to make a lede.  There is also an infobox which has info that pertains to the album, with the exception of composers and length, which are both referenced in the track listing of The Division Bell.  If you can find anything worth transferring to the article, you can do it yourself, but John was not erring in not finding anything worthy of moving, because I can't find it either. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD
See Articles for deletion/Breathe (Pink Floyd song). --John (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where you claim to have consensus, here... Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Do you disagree? --John (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he does, I certainly do! Most of the above seems to speak against redirection, AFAIKT.  As I say in the debate, I agree that you do have a point; however, I think you are going about it in the wrong way: this, for example, did not constitute consensus to redirect as  points out above; quite the opposite, in fact.  Anyway, such visible articles as these need far more discussion than 2 days before taking radical steps such as BOLD redirection.  WP:There is no deadline can be applied to this situation  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as well. I would again ask John how he feels that he is improving this encyclopaedia with these myriad redirects.Mk5384 (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By removing articles which contain nothing that isn't or couldn't be on the album articles, we concentrate readers' attention on the decent article and away from the worthless unexpandable stub. We also follow the guideline. If the consensus in the section above that this is right and proper isn't apparent to you, I don't think I can explain it to you. If you feel strongly that this should be changed, I suggest you take it up at WT:N (orWikipedia talk:Notability (music) and get a consensus there to relax the notability requirement, but I can't see that succeeding. --John (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How, in the name of anything that's reasonable, do you find "consensus in the section above"? You have 3 opposes right above your entry. Also, I realise that you're an admin, but your opinion that an article is "worthless" does not necessarily make it so.Mk5384 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't just about counting but about the arguments people make. There is no encyclopedic reason to keep articles like these, and this is reflected in the notability guideline which enjoys broad and stable consensus across the project. Not everything needs to have an article, you know. --John (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just about counting, but the arguments people make? So, if John likes the argument, that supercedes all votes made by others?Mk5384 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CONSENSUS, and you will see that John is quite right. You may disagree with how he has evaluated it, but he has defined it correctly.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I've read it, and yet fail to see how he is "quite right". As I said in a discussion below, no one's accused me of being the brightest person here. Perhaps you could point out what part of WP:CONSENSUS shows that he's right.Mk5384 (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Please understand that I'm not trying to be an asshole here. But after reading the proposal to delete, I see 8 "keeps", 1 "neutral", and 1 "redirect".Mk5384 (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I said he had the definition right, not that he had evaluated it correctly. That said, the argument for "redirect" is the only one based in WP:NSONGS, which is the relevant guideline. Weighted by guidelines, the argument is 0 keep, 0 neutral, and one redirect. Not much of a consensus for redirection, but certainly not a consensus to "keep", either.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, bollocks!Mk5384 (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Care to actually make an argument?&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. You've decided that the 8 keeps, and 1 neutral don't count, but the one redirect (your vote) does. That's absolute rubbish. There's clear consensus to keep.Mk5384 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If I can just step in, what Kww is saying is consensus is not a tallying of votes. It is arguments for and against, not their quantity, but their quality. If someone just says "yes" or "no" and doesn't explain why, they are just making a vote and not contributing to the attempt at consensus. If someone gives an explanation, but it doesn't reference existing policies, or attempts to quote policies that don't actually exist, the quality of the argument is low, and may not count toward consensus. Actually, both of you are erring in tallying votes, whether you count it as 8/1/1 or 0/0/1, and calling it "consensus". I would like to see a return to looking at the broader picture, which is this question: Has the Pink Floyd Wikiproject (or any other group) ever made a decision that every Pink Floyd song should have an article? It's clear someone has created stub articles for every song going by that privately held opinion, but as far as I know it was never actually discussed or adopted as a policy. The fact that some of these articles really are barren of content, tells me they were created just for the sake of completion. John has asked about whether we should now make a decision that we should not have an article for every song, based on existing Wikipedia-wide policy. I haven't seen anyone argue against that, or even state they want to see all articles kept for no particular reason. In response, John has redirected some articles which he considers to be "no-brainers", after believing we have agreed that some articles should be removed (which means redirected), which, as far as I can see, we have. I can't see this as a "radical" step, or one requiring waiting 2 days. Whoever created all those articles, went against Wikipedia's rules for song article notability. John has asked if we have an official exception to the rules for Pink Floyd (or even an unofficial one, if anyone wants to talk about it), and the answer appears to be no. It now seems some of us want to challenge his changes one by one, but nowhere in these challenges is a proposal to adopt a policy for having an article for every song, even though I suspect that's what some really want, but just don't want to say it out loud. I already replied to an objection to the redirect of "Cluster One", and found it to be a true "no-brainer" of an article lacking in content to justify its existence, and I can only presume this is an example of an objection made for this non-stated reason. On the other hand, it appears that objections to "Breathe" do have some points to make, even though Kww doesn't think they have quality, and I suspect this particular afd isn't going to go through. But that shouldn't stop us from proceeding with redirecting articles where appropriate, which we can do once we get rid of the "keep every song article" mentality (if I can call it that without offending anyone). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the breath of common sense here, we needed it. If the AfD is to fail (and that depends on the closer's interpretation of the many "me too" responses which don't present rationales), we need to decide here what non-single song articles require articles. As A Knight Who Says Ni points out, I don't see anyone openly saying that every song needs an article. Would it be fair to say that an article with no content and no references which has been a stub for an extended period can be redirected as a no-brainer? If not, why not? --John (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will continue to challenge each redirect (or delete) that is done without the individual article being tagged, and consensus formed there. I have a feeling that others will as well. At least what's going on with "Breathe", is being done the right way. What was done to the other articles was an atrocity.Mk5384 (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your rhetoric is as over-the-top as your misunderstanding of our notability policy. If you use the word "atrocity" to describe cleaning up some fancruft, what do you have left to describe an actual atrocity? There's a serious question in my last comment, are you able to answer it, in terms of policy and usefulness to our readers rather than rhetoric? --John (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No it would not be fair to say that, because you, yourself don't get to decide for the rest of us, what constitutes "fancruft", and when an article has "no content". You called the "Breathe" article a stub, and when it was pointed out to you that it is not a stub, you decided it's a "sub stub". (A term I've never heard, and I'm fairly sure you just made up.) You also said that there should be an individual article for a song that's notable, "only if the information won't fit into the album article". That's not part of WP:NSONGS; you made that up too. (And how convienient; as this is not a paper encyclopaedia, you could fit the entire Mahabharata into an article if you wanted to, so there will alway's be room in the article.) Also you said at the AfD that you had consensus here to redirect "Breathe", which is not even remotely true. I'd expect this from a lot of users, but for an admin to be misleading, and attempt to twist the rules is very troubling. I stand by what I said. I will continue to challenge any article that you attempt to merge, delete, or redirect, without the individual article being tagged, and consensus being formed. And judging by the response at the "Breathe" AfD, so will others.Mk5384 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks for your opinion. Any other thoughtful opinions, or serious answers to my questions? --John (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, John has tagged the (reverted) redirects, which is what should have been done in the first place. If, after discussion, any or all of these articles wind up being merged, redirected, or deleted, there will be no objection from me, as it will have been done the right way.Mk5384 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Afd
There is an afd at Articles for deletion/Breathe (Pink Floyd song). Occuli (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted just above, in a section with the same title. --John (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)