Talk:Pink Floyd: Difference between revisions

WikiProject Album format

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums has defined a common table layout for providing a standard set of details for each album. I have begun the process of editing existing album articles to use this format. Anyone else is welcome to assist in the process. Rather than copy the table layout from the main project page, I'd suggest copying from an existing converted Pink Floyd album page so you have less editing. RedWolf 22:11, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

I added a few in. I noticed there are 2 colours. Should each album have its own colour, and if so what would be a good way of deciding colours. Also, should the little known compilation albums (Masters of Rock, A Nice Pair, and Works) be included? - Fizscy46 22:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The color is determined by the album type: studio is orange and compilations are darkseagreen — see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums for the complete list. As for the compilations albums you listed, that's a good question. I think I originally skipped the Works in one of the chronology links as I wasn't certain either. Might be a good question to post on the Talk page for the Albums project. RedWolf 22:51, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

It would probably go under compilation. Its a minor one, but still is one. - Fizscy46 22:57, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The release of Works in 1983 would have been an entirely insignificant occurrence, if not for the inclusion of one new composition in this collection of otherwise previously released songs."Embryo" was actually recorded by Pink Floyd during the sessions for 1969's "Ummagumma" album. However, since the song was recorded by the group, and thus didn't fit into the album's concept of providing time for each band member to do his own thing for a half of an album side, its release was put on hold.The song would eventually be issued in 1970, as part of "Picnic," a sampler compiled by the Harvest label, even though Roger Waters, the number's author, says that the song was never truly finished. Its inclusion on the "Works" album some 13 years later surely made it available to a wider audience, and boosted sales for the album. See :Works By Pink Floyd--asydwaters 13:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent News

I don't have time right now, but someone should add something about their reunion show for Live 8 in Hyde Park. See the following: http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,16740,00.html?tnews http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7394351/pinkfloyd?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single1 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15606679%255E2703,00.html http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15605673%255E2902,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4087578.stm http://www.itv.com/news/entertainment_916.html Martschink

WikiProject Song format

I've brought in Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs to Pink Floyd. Lets see if we can even further Pink Floyd as the most comprehensive set of artist articles. I've started off with Wish You Were Here (Due to its nature of being the only song page for Pink Floyd to be released as both a single and on an album). - Fizscy46 01:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Album naming

Some issues regarding the naming of albums on Wikipedia.

Piper at the Gates of Dawn

The album and other encyclopaedias list it as The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, so why was the "The" dropped off? I always assume the album was referring to one piper and not just any piper, curious. Iam 05:01, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Beacause other encyclopedias use bots and copy off one another. There is no "The" on the album cover, which is why its listed like that on here.

Oh really? Have you ever bothered to look at the cover? Here's a link to the back of the album cover: Album Cover. It says The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. There is definitely a "The" on the album. And here's a copy of the CD: CD. Secondly, when I'm talking about encyclopaedias I'm not talking just about internet ones. I'm talking about the ones printed on paper eg. Rolling Stones, M.C. Strong's tome, The Rough Guide. All of them say The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Iam 00:17, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've only seen the front before now, and I never saw a 'The' before the rest of it. - Fizscy46 02:23, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

When I originally viewed Piper at the Gates of Dawn, I wondered about the missing "The" but just shrugged it off as I had only been on Wikipedia for less than a month. The full name is listed in the opening paragraph on the page. The original author (anonymous) left it off when they named the page. I'd probably vote to move the article and setup a redirect. A encyclopedia should evolve to be accurate as much as possible. RedWolf 04:05, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Redwolf. I wouldnt have made an issue of it had Wikipedia not been an encyclopedia. Iam

There is definitely a "THE" here at Vic Singh's siteand in this article too.--asydwaters 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have swapped the pages so The Piper at the Gates of Dawn is now the official article name and the former page redirects to it. RedWolf 01:26, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

DSOTM

We should also make note that Dark Side also has The preceding it (On the front of the cover). - Fizscy46 19:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) In fact the lyrics read "I will see you on the dark side of the moon"--asydwaters 13:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wall

"It is also one of a very small number of songs on Pink Floyd's first four concept albums not to segue at either the beginning or end." I think this comment should be removed as it is not entirely accurate: it sort of does segue from Bring the Boys Back Home ("Is there anybody out there...?", and the fade out is because on the original vinyl it was the last track on side 3 (the joys of the 20 minute form). I don't think the trivia adds, and it bugged me enough to comment! As a thought, it would be useful to indicate the original track listings so that the CD generation understand how the 20 minute side determined the form. (Probably a whole topic in itself for Album-oriented rock).

• After I read the section carefully, it looks like this sentence refers to the song Comfortably Numb, not the whole album. The track listings are on The Wall (track listing) album article. --Gbeeker 1 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
  • That lists only "Disc One" and "Disc Two", not the sides (think vinyl) ___ tmegapscm

I agree with the original comments above; this bit of trivia adds nothing to the subject of the article. It might be worth noting in the song article, but not here. I've deleted the sentence. Jgm 6 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)

p.u.l.s.e.

Okay, I don't have the album in my own collection (yet) so I'm not exactly sure how the article for this album should be named. Various web sites are using various names:

• p.u.l.s.e. [1]
• P.U.L.S.E. (here)
• Pulse (most web sites I've checked so far)

Can we reach a consensus as to what the name we'll use on Wikipedia. Of course, we can add re-directs for the other names not considered accurate. I have also uploaded an image of the album cover (Image:Pink Floyd Pulse.jpg) although I might have to re-do it as I noticed after it was uploaded it wasn't in my usual 200x200 format. RedWolf 03:52, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

www.pinkfloydonline.com (An official fan site) has it under Pulse.

I've also found a second cover that features a womans body floating. All blueish and stuff. - Fizscy46 03:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh wait, found something. Its P-U-L-S-E

according to this picture of the vhs of it - Fizscy46 23:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, see [2] and view the larger image. Appears to me that it's bullets and not dashes, i.e. P•U•L•S•E
RedWolf 04:56, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect they have used bullets in this case, just because of the circular printing effect where dashes would not look as good. Having an article name with bullets would also not conform to naming conventions. I'm okay with P-U-L-S-E. We can always move it later if need be. RedWolf 05:17, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Created as P-U-L-S-E. RedWolf 06:29, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

The world may never know.

   -HouseHippie

The Simpsons and South Park

Does anybody else think that the long references to The Simpsons and South Park devalue this article? There are 101 more relevant and interesting things that could be written about Pink Floyd. --Auximines 07:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Very much so; I'd be happy to see it go (or at least, go to Pink Floyd trivia or some such). Andy Mabbett 09:17, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's no harm in moving it, might as well. - Fizscy46 21:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"The Pink Floyd"

Just curious, when and why did Pink Floyd drop the "THE"?

Most likely it happened in the same way that Led Zeppelin got their name, As they played at bars and clubs, the were perhaps advertised as just 'Pink Floyd', so they kept the name. - Fizscy46 19:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just bought Live at Pompeii and in it David Gilmour refers to themselves as "The Pink Floyd" in 1972. Also note that before then they called themselves "The Pink Floyd Sound".Boothinator 16:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It will have been pre-1967, the year in which ''The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn'''''Bold text''' was released: the sleeve has no 'The'. The band was commonly referred to as 'The Floyd' for years after, but this has little or no connection with the group's erstwhile moniker. HighHopes 12.04, 15 May 2005

The name of Pink Floyd was constructed out of the last names of two R&B singers, Pink and Floyd. This also supports the name "The Pink Floyd Sound", as to say that they were going for a combination sound of their favorite musicians.

Being the trivium fan I am, it's Pink Anderson and Floyd COuncil, which where musicians, not singers. The band was first The Pink Floyd Sound. They soon dropped the "Sound" and the definiteve article dropped along the way.

Recent activity?

2004 in music states Pink Floyd has re-joined and plans to release another studio album. Is this true or is it a falsehood inserted by the banned Michael user? RedWolf 00:44, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Given that Roger Waters has been kicked out, Nick Mason very much gone by now, and Rick Wright having launched a solo career, and the obvious tours that've been done under the name of 'David Gilmour', I doubt that 'Pink Floyd' exists much any more - Brother Dysk.

Roger Waters is supposedly working on a new album, scheduled for released in 2005. You can listen to two new tracks of his: [3]. Checking other Pink Floyd news sites, there is no mention of a Pink Floyd reunion. RedWolf 18:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Nick Mason, Rick Wright, and David Gilmour are still in close contact, its possible for another release sometime... They are all under 60 still.

The new Roger Waters album is confirmed. - Floydian 03:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pink Floyd reuniting for Live 8 According to CNN, all the original members will probably get together for the live 8 concert. I guess we'll see if that pans out or not.

• www.pinkfloyd.com also confirmed that Waters will join the other members at Live 8. They have a quote from Gilmour's statement on the announcement. RedWolf 05:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Images of pink floyd

This article is of great value, but I think that one or two images of the band would be great! Is anyone know where can I find such images? 84.94.5.232 23:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lots of them on the songs at http://www.pinkfloyd.co.uk/echoes (Just check the images tile on each song for band images) - Floydian 02:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That site looks liks an official band site - what's the license on the pictures? (That's the important point.) Dan | Talk 02:42, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Wall Live In Berlin

Should this be mentioned here, or just referenced in passing with a link to [Roger Waters], as it was him that did this concert, and NOT Pink Floyd?

Who are you? RedWolf 06:24, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, still a bit of a newbie at syntax, and such. I am Brother Dysk.

Ok. The convention is to use four tildes (~~~~) when adding comments and it will be replaced with a link to your user page and a timestamp. To answer your original question, I would only reference it in passing rather than denote it being a work of Pink Floyd. RedWolf 17:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Separate articles for re-issued albums?

I've noticed someone added a link for the 2004 reissue of The Final Cut. I don't think we need a separate article for re-issued albums as I don't see a problem just adding another section to the original album page. RedWolf 06:24, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Add article about the Publius Enigma?

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to get an article on the Publius Enigma? -- IanMcGreene 09:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was an interesing event. For sure. Did it ever have a conclusion? -- Longhair | Talk 09:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There was a very vague response by someone claiming they had solved the puzzle and they had found that life was beautiful, and there is so much humans are unable to see, or something like that. I also believe Publius came out and said that someone had solved the Enigma, and received the reward, but I don't know of any full explanations of the puzzle available. -- IanMcGreene 09:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That said, it was truly a significant event in the fandom of Pink Floyd. Whatever the answer, it surely deserves some exposure? -- Longhair | Talk 06:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Screen

This article is on VfD as its content is on this page does anyone want to keep it? TAS 15:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) Thats Verification Dubious,is it?I've not been abl to find any reliable source for Mr.Screen,so it must be pending?--asydwaters 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Daleks

Peter Wynne Willson has been credited with building the light machines;as Nick Mason says in his book The Inside-Out.The Daleks ;as the machine was dubbed by Roger Waters and Nick Mason,in tribute to their robotic nature and obivious hostility to humans.Peter began experimenting with different ways of treating light,by putting it through polarisers and sretched membrane of latex.He found that the best polarised light patterns were created using condoms.Peter would set a mirror at an angle of 45 degrees in front of the end of a long lens.The mirror was then vibrated to create Lissajou patterns.Later he would insert copper and colour wheels into the path and altering the speed of the wheels to create "worms of colour".The Daleks consisted of a movie light,ignited at extreme temprature to achieve maximum brightness.A coloured glass wheel spinning at extremely high speed was placed in front of this.Then the whole apparatus was put atop a box of two to three feet wide and angled up at the band on a rubber insulation.The spinning wheels with adjustable speed the colours produced were amazing.But the only problem was that the high speed of wheels in motion and exremly high temperature would result in loud shattering of glass,sending shards of glass flying at the band.The Daleks used in the P*U*L*S*E* tour however were much safer and unbreakable.--asydwaters 14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Final Cut

The article here calls this a Pink Floyd album, and I agree that this is largely true. However, I do think that some mention of the fact that it is, according to the sleeve, "The Final Cut - Performed by Pink Floyd" and considered by the rest of the band to be a Roger Waters solo album. Would this be considered a breach of NPOV? I'll make it happen if there are no objections. Brother Dysk 05:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The article currently says re: this album: "the front cover displayed no title". However, the picture displayed alongside clearly shows a title on the front cover. Is this a reissue or something? In any case, the two things look a bit silly side-by-side. Maybe someone can upload an earlier picture, or the text could be modified to say "early versions of", if indeed this is the reason for the confusion. Pelago 16:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The LP front cover has no title, but the CD version does. InTheFlesh? 18:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory changes?

A month ago this page said a few very different things. For example,

• The article seems to ramble on a lot and is choppy and sometimes inaccurate in it wording.
• Music From the Film More says that it was the last time they were "The Pink Floyd" while the article says they dropped "the" by their debut album, which would be Piper.
• The short interpretations of different songs in Dark Side are inaccurate:
  • To say that On the Run is about travel doesn't accurately describe the piece.
  • Money is not about the money associated with fame so much as a critique of people's obsession with money.
• When describing songs, I think it would be better to use to the present tense since they still exist.

There is nothing majorly inaccurate, but the pace and wording is screwed up in many places and needs to be fixed up.Boothinator 16:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• "on the run" is more or less a experimentation on the VC3 synthesizer.The various sound effects notably the footsteps and the flight announcement were added to give a theme for this instumental.However "The great Gig In The Sky" is definitely a song about the band's then morbid fear of flying.--asydwaters 15:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

2005.05.01 mass-spamming by pinkfloydz.com

For the record -- Apparently, the webmaster of www.pinkfloydz.com and www.rogerwatersontour.com thinks he can massively spam at least 7 PF-related pages, performing one or many of:

• Adding or moving his site on top of external links sections (while he's way down on Google's 3rd page for "pink-floyd", way after most other links he bypasses).
• Deleting at least two external links to www.pinkfloyd-co.com (a Google's 1st page link...)
• In the body of articles, disguising notelinks [www.pinkfloydz.com] (to his sites) into [www.pinkfloydz.com apparent wikilinks]. Or simply adding external wikilinks to his site at the top of multiple sections.

I've mass-reverted the changes. Check his rampage for yourself.

←^#6_talk 12:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"On the run" is described as Roger Water's code word for paranoia in the Nicholas Schaeffner bio. Endomion 05:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pink Floyd template changes

Please see Template_talk:Pink_Floyd for discussion and a vote to hopefully improve the Pink Floyd template. -- Longhair | Talk 00:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Founding members inconsistency

The second paragraph under History doesn't make sense:

Pink Floyd originally consisted of Syd Barrett (vocals, guitar), Richard Wright (keyboards, vocals), Roger Waters (bass, vocals) and Nick Mason (drums). They covered rhythm and blues staples such as "Louie, Louie". As Barrett started writing tunes more influenced by American surf music, psychedelic rock, and British whimsy, humour and literature, the heavily jazz-oriented Klose departed and left a rather stable foursome.

This seems to be saying that the band originally consisted of four members, then as they changed style, someone named "Klose"—not listed as one of the founding members—left the band, leaving... still four. What? --Delirium 08:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Bob Klose was an original member of Pink Floyd, albeit for a very short time, long before they started recording. He left in 1965, and made no contributions to any Pink Floyd album; he is considered a very minor character in the history of the band. I've cleared this up on the article. --Muugokszhiion 03:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bob Klose should stay I say! Just because he didn’t contribute much doesn’t mean he should be totally ignored. Examples… hmmm… can’t think of any besides this… --zaudragon (not registered though) 15:34, 17 Jul 2005 (PDT)

Dark Side of the Moon meets the Wizard of Oz

I didn't see anything about the supposed connection between DSOTM and it's relation, and subsequent cult fans, to The Wizard of Oz.

I've never checked it out myself, but I've seen pre-arranged sets for sale where the album has been dubbed over the movie and supplied a long list of 'noticable conicendces' involving both rhythm, beat, lyrical content, and atmosphere.

Googling for info on the matter resulted with the following link on top: [4] I think you are referring to Synchronocities.Here are the basic facts on pink floyd and synchronocities. What is it? One day, someone found out that a movie/video, when played with a different soundtrack (an unrelated song or piece of music), seemed extraordinarily good, as if that piece of music was made specifically for that video.Little by little, a lot of people started talking about these synchronicities (or synch, for short), because they generated a completely new experience than the video by itself. And people started experiencing different combinations of music and video, to see if they fit. The lyrics (although some pieces may be instrumental) and music join in a fantastic synch with the action, revealing a lot of coincidences. The first synch I ever heard of was the Dark Side of the Rainbow, and I was amazed at the results. What do I need?:

• A stereo (preferably a CD player) for the audio parts.
• A VCR or preferably a DVD player(in this case you can have the subtitles or closed caption on and turn the stereo volume all way up, and you'll still be able to follow the plot and dialogues) for the video portion.
• A television (preferably a big screen or a projector,for a bigger impact).
• The VCR tape or DVD for the selected film.
• The tape, vinyl or CD for the selected soundtrack.
• A little imagination and good mood.

Here are some links which can be verified: 1) The Synchronicity Arkive 2)AllPinkFloydFans Network Archives.--asydwaters 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Architectural Abdabs

From: http://www.pink-floyd.org/faq/faq2.html

NOTE: contrary to popular belief ... the band was never known as "The Architectural Abdabs" this was merely the headline from an article about the band in the polytechnics school paper. The article is reprinted in the "In The Flesh" book.

I don't have the book, so can't actually verify this, but Pink-Floyd.org is a reputable source. Anyone object to removal of Architectural Abdabs as their former name from the article? --195.92.168.167 3 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Lineups

I've added the Live 8 lineup. It would be good to have some mention of the other musicians who have augmented the band, on stage, over the years. Andy Mabbett 5 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

Ex wife

Csn we have a source and attribution for the quote about the reunion being "like sleleping with your ex-wife", please? Andy Mabbett 7 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)

PINK FLOYD SPLIT IN 1995!!!!!!!

Some stubborn fool keeps messing with the lienups. After the Division Bell tour, Pink Floyd DID NOT EXIST. They played one special, one-off reunion show in 2005. Listing, for instance "David Gilmour - guitar (1968 - 2005)" gives the impression that the band was together for an entire DECADE of inactivity. Factually wrong, incorrect, and misleading.

If Led Zeppelin played live 8, you would list "Robert Plant, vocals, 1968 - 2005). I will continue to change it until this nimrod goes away.

AFAIK, Pink Floyd did "exist" after 1995, as they never officially split - even though they were inactive for a decade. I think the dates should be like (1968 - ?) or (1968 - present) or something. --jeffthejiff

I have to agree with jeff. I don't think that floyd didn't "officially" split up again. But that's just my bias. --Househippie

I agree, Pink Floyd did not "split." In fact, they all collaborated (including Roger) on the Echoes CD. This is not new material of course, but dormancy does not equal "splitting up" either. plp3r

I agree too. They never called it a draw, hence never splitted. Geez, if you're to consider that every band not currently touring or recording has splitted, band bios would be hard to follow. Xave 21:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Xave: "if you're to consider that every band not currently touring or recording has splitted, band bios would be hard to follow.". Who wrote the heading two paragraphs (65.1.233.137) wrote it him/herself: “DECADE of inactivity”, inactivity doesn’t mean inexistency, nor that the band is disbanded. How could something that doesn’t exist be inactive? Do bands exist or are united just when they’re active? What about vacations? Besides, where did 65.1.233.137 get the information about Pink Floyd splitting in 1995? Anybody else ever heard, watched or read news of any Pink Floyd member or representative announcing the band dissolution in 1995 or ever after? Huax 3:00a.m. GMT, February 2nd, 2006.

I think that Pink Floyd officially didn't split; but however since their last activity was the release of Pulse live CD and DVD and they didn't do any press releases or music as a band or any converts since then, they must be considered split and thus inactive. Live 8 is an exception of only 20 minutes and for charity. For my opinion, the dates must be: 1965-1995, 2005; and the status: inactive since David Gilmour had stated the band will never reunite. Thus, they are inactive, and they split in 1995. Hall of Fame inductions and charity reunisions are exceptions. Moremoremore

The problem is a matter of Wikipedia convention, as well as a matter of wording. The one brief statement made by Gilmour was in response to rumours that Waters would be rejoining, not rumours that the band had officially broken up. There's still never been a press statement to the effect of, "Pink Floyd is defunct." The band still legally exists. They may work together again in the future. Note that all 4 of them worked on remixing the Echoes compilation in 2000-2001, as well.

The other issue, as brought up by Xave, is that changing the band's history to only be considered "active" when they are actually working on an album or tour leads to all kinds of problems with all bands on the Wikipedia. Should Floyd be listed as 1965-1977, 1979-1983, 1987-1995, 2005, recognizing other periods when they weren't working together? When vacationing or when members are working on other projects, are they considered inactive, reforming when starting again?

Another example is the article on No Doubt; they didn't work together for two years while Gwen Stefani worked on solo material. Should they be listed as 1986-2003, 2005-present? It seems silly and sets a messy precedent. - dharmabum 00:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Album track lists

Do we need the track list for every album on this page; when they're already on the individual albums' pages? Andy Mabbett 17:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the track lists don't take up anymore vertical space than the album pictures do. However, since the page size is past the 32K suggested limit (at 37K), they could be removed without affecting the readability of the article. Gbeeker 19:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

With the track lists gone, the article size is now 33K. Gbeeker 19:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Plz. post ur personal wishlist on your user page only!!!--asydwaters 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment added to article

80.45.254.213 (talk · contribs) added the following to the article, which I copied here.

"can sombody put somthing about the album - 'Just Warmin' Up'- 1994 Tampa Rehersal? It's not in here, im sure it exists - im a little confused... :-("

I've never heard of the album myself. Bootleg perhaps? -- Longhair | Talk 11:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Bootleg it is,indeed. Xave 12:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words problem

The final paragraph of the section "Breakthrough era: 1971-1975" currently reads: "Dark Side of the Moon and the three following albums (Wish You Were Here, Animals and The Wall) are held up by some fans as the peak of Pink Floyd's career". I think this falls foul of wikipedia's weasel words policy. Should we take the sentence out, or can anyone suggest a replacement, or quote a source? Hughcharlesparker 22:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Organizing discography to add singles and EPs.

I think that discography section should be expanded to include early singles (1967-1968) as well as later singles and EP's. Any ideas how to adjust present discography section to do this?

Live Performances section

I believe this statement: "The technologically advanced tour for The Division Bell included (along with such stage staples as "Mr. Screen") an enormous, flowering disco ball at the climax of "Comfortably Numb", giant pigs emerging from the speakers during "One of These Days", and a laser show that included the first public use of very high power gold-coloured lasers." should refer to the tour for A Momentary Lapse of Reason instead of The Division Bell. I attended both concerts, and remember the disco ball and the giant pig during the 1987 tour. I'm not completely sure about the gold lasers. This is also confirmed by the video of the 1987 tour. -- CF 04:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but the MLOR tour, the pig flew out over the stage, and was not anchored to the speakers. Also, all of the above were present in the Division Bell concert.

In praise of....

... whoever the anonymous editor is who just did a pass over the whole article. Much improved; bravo. I was thinking about doing something like that myself, as I recently did over at Asperger's Syndrome, but there is basically no need now. PurplePlatypus 21:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Pigonthewing edits to links section

Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) keeps editing out the links to www.pinkfloyd-co.com, calling it spam. He seems to have a personal vendetta against this website even though that site ranks at the top of google search. It quite obvious this website is NOT spam. So we request he stop editing a legit Pink Floyd resource. (Anon edit by User:71.2.54.25)

I request that you stop spamming it with multiple enteries. Andy Mabbett 10:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a second request that Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) stop removing legit links to websites and forums. Pink Floyd forums are a legit category I think. Take your personal vendetta elsewhere please, this is a resource for Pink Floyd fans! (Anon edit by User:71.2.139.165)

This is the 3rd request that Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbet) stop editing out web site links. The link I put in is a useful resource for Pink Floyd fans!If you have a problem Mr Mabbet please post it here.

Membership dates

Unless someone can cite evidence that PF ceased to exist, legally in 2000, will users please desist from changing band membership dates from nnnn-present to the ludicrous nnnn-2000, 2005? Andy Mabbett 10:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

agreed, nnnn-present is the proper one until the band is officially over (which isn't likely to happen even if they don't record anything). Fbergo 18:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Featured?

I don't have that much experience with featured articles, but I think this article looks pretty good - does anyone think it's worth trying for featured status? I would list this on peer review but I don't trust my judgement as to whether or not it's good enough yet. If enough people agree that this is looking good, I'll get it listed for PR. Thanks! --High^(Hopes)(+) 17:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! (but please remove the deprecated HTML "font" tag from your sig!). Andy Mabbett 17:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

i have reread this article and have no objections to its nomination for featured article...the author worked effectively to respond to my commentsAnlace 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed link

The AOL links to the Live 8 videos has been removed by AOL...hence my removal of the link here. (Anon edit by User:71.2.139.165)

Math error on the Dark Side

Dark Side of the Moon was on Billboard 200 for 591 consecutive weeks, and that is 11 years. According to what I've found, the album stayed on the chart from March 17th, 1973, to October 19th, 1974 (84 weeks), and dropped off for 24 weeks. In April 12th, 1975, the album returned to the charts and would stay another 48 weeks, until March 6th, 1976. The album would stay 40 weeks out of the charts and would return in December 18th, 1976. It would then stay 591 consecutive weeks, until April 23rd, 1988, when it dropped off for good. As Billboard changed its charts methodology, Dark Side of the Moon is never going to return to the Top 200 and it is unlikely another album will break its record. According to this data, Dark Side of the Moon remained 723 weeks on the charts, but I've read somewhere else that it spent 724 or 741 weeks on the charts. I don't know which is the exact number, but I hope I've clarified a few points.

How long was Dark Side on the charts? The article says "The critically-acclaimed album stayed on the Billboard Top 200 for 741 weeks (including 591 consecutive weeks from 1973 to 1988)", but 591 weeks would be only 11 years and some months. 741 weeks would be 14+ years, but I don't know the facts. Someone who knows what's right needs to clarify this. Unschool 04:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

List of members in "infobox"

The list of members in the "infobox" omits Roger Waters and Syd Barrett. I assume that this is intentional and is because the list is intended to show only current members. On the edit page, the field in question does indeed seem to be called "current_members", but the on-screen text just says "members". I propose that someone who understands how this "infobox" thing works makes the following edits:

1. Change "Members" to "Current Members" (and leave the list as Gilmour, Mason and Wright).
2. Add a new field to the infobox for "Former Members", and list Waters and Barrett there. It is just not right to have an infobox on Pink Floyd which does not list these two.

I would do it myself but I don't know how to. (Unsigned comement by User:86.134.115.115)

American Tours

On the paragraph about Atom Heart Mother it says they went on their first US tour after the success of AHM, which is not true. They went once during the Barrett-era (which was a total flop as Syd was totally gone by then) and at least once later after Saucerfull of secrets.

Live performances

The new "Live performances" section should be merged into the band history, I feel. What do others think? Andy Mabbett 17:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm in two minds. Certainly some of it seems redundant, and that should be fixed no matter what. As for the organization, part of me agrees with you and part of me thinks that the stuff about the concerts would sort of disrupt the narrative flow (such as it is) of the History section. I'm leaning slightly toward keeping it as is, if for no other reason than because it's less work, but I would not be upset if someone boldly decided to change it. PurplePlatypus 19:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

'puppies' or 'puppets'?

"It also featured high technology special effects, inflatable puppies, four backup singers and 100 tons of equipment. "

The 'Wall'-specific article seems to say it's puppets, but I wasn't there so I don't want to just change it.--Anchoress 14:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Google gives no hits for '"the wall" "inflatable puppies"' except for Wikipedia, whereas it gives 1,190 for '"the wall" "inflatable puppets"'. Therefore I assume "puppies" is a misunderstanding or a joke and have changed it to "puppets".

Barrett

Syd Barrett used to put acid in his morning coffee. I do not think the extent of his drug abuse and how it effected this future/history of the band is captured by this article. (unsigned edit by User: Notmyrealemail)

Syd Barrett used to put acid in his morning coffee.: Did he? Do you have a citation for that? Andy Mabbett 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the "acid in the morning coffee" story before, and while I've never had confirmation of it, I think it's due to the statement made by June Bolan, wife of Marc Bolan (at that time June Child). She and her then-boyfriend were roomates of Peter Jenner, Floyd's manager at the time. She was at home when Jenner was out, and would end up taking messages and so on, and eventually became quite important to the band, doing everything from driving the van to distributing wages. She never had any doubt that Syd's prodigious acid usage accellerated his mental deterioration. He eventually moved to a flat at 101 Cromwell Road, and one of his new roomates was a guy named Scotty, described by John Marsh as one of the original acid-in-the-reservoir, change-the-face-of-the-world acid missionaries, and a desperately twisted freak. According to him, nobody would drink anything offered at the flat for fear of what Scotty had dropped into it. Here June is quoted on page 77 of Nicholas Schaffner's book A Saucerful of Secrets: The Pink Floyd Odyssey: ... he'd be all right for a couple of weeks, and then he'd be funny for a couple of days - and it would transpire that he was taking a lot of acid. He knew the volume of the acid, the tabs he was taking himself. But then 'friends', when he had a cup of tea, would drop one in and not tell him, so that halfway through a trip he'd be on another trip. And perhaps they'd do that a couple times a day, for two or three weeks. And that's when his hold on reality became very tenuous - and very, very difficult to deal with for people that didn't live around him. I'm still convinced that a lot of it was acid-based. It may have happened without, but it probably would have taken longer.

Certainly some mention of this aspect of Syd's life would help illuminate his breakdown and split with the band. Dharmabum420 05:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Regular augmenting musicians?

What do you think about adding, at the end of the article, after "Former Members", something referting to regular augmenting musicians, like Guy Pratt, Dick Parry, Snowy White? Rotring 20:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think they deserve a mention seeing as though they toured with Pink Floyd and Dick Parry played saxophone on some of their records. ( Davehard 11:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC) )

Clare Torry, the original Great Gig in the Sky singer and who toured with them later might also be mentioned. Most notably, Tim Renwick, second/rythym guitarist on the last two tours and albums, and bandmate of Gilmour's in the 60's, and Jon Carin, who played keyboards on the same albums and tours and who had a prominent role in the P*U*L*S*E recording singing Waters's part in Hey You, are both definitely worthy of mention. Maybe a subsection should be created, though, as none of the above mentioned were ever officially members, but regular session/touring musicians. - Dharmabum420 09:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That Frequent contributors sectyion was exactly what I had in mind. I just added Gary Wallis, and ordered the names alphabetically (since there is/shouldn't be - IMHO - any other kind of hierarchy, and also because that's the way the Classic line-up and Former members are sorted). Rotring 16:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to remember the percussionist's name but I was too lazy to look it up. :) Yeah, alphabetical is best, I hadn't thought about it (they were just in the order that I thought of them in). - Dharmabum420 22:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

When I thought of augmenting musicians, the image of Gary literally jumping to the beat of Money's solo (while performing, that is -- in the Earls Court P*U*L*S*E concert) instantly came to my mind. ;) Rotring 20:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For the A Momentary Lapse Of Reason studio album the augmenting musicians ( i.e. Apart from the band members) were

 Bob Ezrin: keyboards,Percussion and Sequencers
 Tony Levin: Bass Guitar, Stick
 Jim Keltner: Drums 
 Steve Forman: Percussion 
 Jon Carin: Keyboards
 Tom Scott: Alto and Soprano Saxophone
 Scott Page: Tenor Saxophone
 Carmine Appice:Drums
 Pat Leonard: Synthesizers
 Bill Payne: Hammond Organ
 Michael Landau: Guitar
 John Halliwell: Saxophone
 Darlene Koldenhaven :Backing Vocals
 Carmen Twillie :Backing Vocals
 Phyllis  St.James and Donnie Gerrard :Backing Vocals

Augmenting Musicians for Delicate Sound Of Thunder

  Tim Renwick: Guitars, Vocals
  Guy Pratt: Bass , Vocals
  Gary Wallis: Percussion
  Jon Carin: Keyboards , Vocals
  Scott Page: Saxophone , Guitar
  Margaret Taylor: Backing Vocals
  Durga McBroom  : Backing Vocals
  Rachel Fury    : Backing Vocals(She is currently awol).

For the The Division Bell album

  Tim Renwick: Guitars
  Guy Pratt: Bass,Vocals
  Gary Wallis: Percussion
  Jon Carin:Programming,Additional Keyboards
  Dick Parry: Tenor Saxophone
  Bob Ezrin: Keyboards, Percussion
 Sam Brown :Backing Vocals
  Durga McBroom :Backing Vocals
  Carol Kenyah :Backing Vocals
  Jackie Sheridan and Rebecca Leigh-White :Backing Vocals

The lineup for the p*u*l*s*e* tour just replaced the backing singers with this:Backing Vocals: Sam Brown, Durga McBroom, Claudia Fontaine .--asydwaters 07:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Roger Waters is not a current member of the band

The list of members which lists Waters as a member of the band from "2005 - ?" should be deleted. Waters is not a memeber of the band, he simply performed with them during Live 8. While the band may have reconciled things with each other, he still is not an official member of the band and that was simply one performance which may or may not be repeated in the future (Waters has waffled in the various interviews on whether they would ever perform again) - Anon. 1/17/06

Gramophone records

And the end of the section on The Wall film, there's this comment: ... "What Shall We Do Now?" which was cut out of the original album due to the constraints of gramophone records.

A recent edit removed the capitalization of "gramophone records", as the link goes to the article on the actual recording medium.

The confusion I have is this: The Wall was actually marketed and distributed by the Gramophone Record Co., which I think was the original editor capitalized the phrase. Since, AFAIK, the problem with "What Shall We Do Now?" was the physical constraits of the format rather than interference from the company, perhaps it should be changed to vinyl records for clarity? - dharmabum (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Another Link in the Wall"

I'm not sure [5] is notable enough to keep in the resources links according to Wikipedia is not a link repository. It has a sub-900,000 Alexa rating and is currently a 4th page Google hit. It contains no original content, as it is a collection of external links. On the other hand, it is a very comprehensive one, although I haven't gone through to check the quality of the links themselves. The anonymous user who continually re-adds it is very persistent, and since I have no desire to engage in a revert war and I'm personally indifferent to whether it's there or not, but I want this article to be at its best, so I thought I'd put the question up to the community. - dharmabum 05:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Many of the provided links are either personal fan sites or commerical sites that have nothing to do with Pink Floyd specifically. I see no need for maintaining the link. InTheFlesh? 18:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the maintainer of [6] (2nd page link in Google, 1st page link in yahoo.com) and I'm also the Floyd dmoz maintainer (so with some competence about floyd links). In spite of search engine position, I think that the pedantic use of engine rating could become a too strict way to evaluate a site usefulnes. I spent many hours to maintain an updated and correct link database, who agrees as to well-known links, as to many interesting but rare floyd links, so I think that the site is worth going on Floyd wiki page against the leading behaviour and aggressiveness of Dharmabum420. Vittorio, 9 February 2006

Please see the Wikipedia policies on external links, especially #9 under "What should not be linked to": A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it. I have nothing against your site personally, I'm simply trying to maintain Wikipedia standards for quality articles. - dharmabum 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply, your standard of quality does not necessary match with the quality standard of other people. And this concept should be at the root of wiki democracy. Vittorio, 10 February 2006

I agree. Which is why, simply, I've been trying to follow Wikipedia's established policies on external links, which include not adding your own site to an article. I have not removed your site again, for that matter I will not, but others will read this discussion, discuss whether your link is worth keeping and act accordingly. - dharmabum 01:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not submit the link for the first time (please, see the wiki history); subsequently someone removed all the resources links with no reasonable motivation, so I simply restored the most relevant of them. Vittorio, 20 February 2006

Pink Floyd Reunion of the 4 members ?

I have not yet got any Full Confirmation of Pink Floyd's Reunion which obvisouly requires all the members to consent to.Only David Gilmour has said that He's not looking forward to any reunion,but Roger,Nick and Rick have still to comment.Hence I moved this here from main page: On January 31, 2006, David Gilmour issued a joint statement on behalf of the group stating that they have no plans to reunite.[7]

On February 3, 2006, Gilmour stated in an interview in "La República" that he is finished with Pink Floyd, as he wishes to focus on his solo projects and personal life. He said:

"I think enough is enough. I am 60 years old. I don’t have the will to work as much anymore. Pink Floyd was an important part in my life, I have had a wonderful time, but it’s over. For me it’s much less complicated to work alone."

He mentions that he agreed to play Live 8 with Waters for three reasons. First of all, he wanted to support the cause of Live 8. Secondly, he did Live 8 to make peace with Waters so that they could put their twenty-year feud to rest. Finally, he agreed to do the concert feeling that he might have later regretted not participating in the event. [8] Major news outlets have not yet confirmed the details of the interview. There is also no confirmation of this interview on Gilmour's website or Pink Floyd's website.--asydwaters 08:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The links above are wrong .... the magazine is supposedly the Italian magazine [[9]], not the Peruvian one in the original Wiki link. Hindustan Times link is also now dead. Translation is on the Brain Damage website [[10]] under "news". Strangely, no web address to that specific page. You have to hunt for it. And yeah, still no reference on other Floyd websites. Grimhim 00:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that the January 31 statement was issued, according to the official website, by "Roger Waters joining Pink Floyd's David Gilmour, Richard Wright and Nick Mason", making it clear that Roger did not officially rejoin the band for Live 8, and that the January 31 statement is unquestionably from all 4 individuals (I replaced the dead Hindustan Times link with one directly to the statement on their official page). The interview with Gilmour does not indicate that he is speaking on behalf of the whole band, but it is definitely worth having on the main page, as it's a well-cited and important statement. - dharmabum 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Nick has said that he's open to a reunion for "something like a huge peace process in the Middle East." [11] (click on the "News" link and scroll down to "Nick Mason visits Germany"). InTheFlesh? 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember the statement... I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that they might play together again, but if they do it'll be something like Live 8, a charity benefit one-time thing. - dharmabum 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Music Project evaluation

Pink Floyd has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Comprehensive

The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.

• Comprehensive: Legacy and influences are poorly covered

There are actually sound samples for "On the Run" and "Eclipse" on the DSotM page that we might use; does anyone have samples from other albums? InTheFlesh? 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be glad to make some (from The Wall, Meddle, WYWH, or Echoes -- these are what I have in digital); suggestions of what songs to choose?Rotring 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I made and added about 30 clips (two songs from each album, although DSotM has 4 with the two above) since he last posted; take a look here and see if you think any others need adding. - dharmabum 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On the "Featured Article" talk page, some people had issue with the use of singular/plural in relation to "Pink Floyd", "The Floyd", and "the band". I changed most of the stuff that mentioned "the band" to singular, but there should be a consensus as to whether "Pink Floyd" is considered singular or plural (it occurs both ways in the article; recent articles linked to on a Google News search also do not have a consensus). InTheFlesh? 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We're getting out of my comfort zone regarding the specifics of grammar, but I would think Pink Floyd or The Floyd would be considered singular, as its a proper noun which refers to a group of people. If they were called "The Pink Floyds", it would be plural, with the term "a Pink Floyd," referring to a single member of the band. But part of the issue is just convention; we don't refer to Keith Richards as "a Rolling Stone", but we do refer to Mickey Dolenz as "a Monkee". - dharmabum 21:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Compilation Albums

Do you think we should add albums such as "Relics," "Works," etc. to the box on the bottom of the page? InTheFlesh? 04:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The box on the bottom of the page is actually this template, with its own talk page. It's worth noting that people had agreed earlier to remove "less important" albums from the list, and generally people like there to be a talk page consensus before modifying a template as a single change to that template affects dozens of other pages. Take the suggestion over that way and set up a proposal. I personally think a sub-section for "Compilations" wouldn't be bad, especially considering how unique a couple of them are in being the only official source for some songs ("Embryo", "Biding My Time") - dharmabum 07:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Vic Singh

http://www.sydbarrett.org/vicsinghinterview.htm --asydwaters 08:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! - dharmabum 08:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Tea, not T

According to Mason's book - and the photos of things like setlists therein - the early proto-Floyd was called Tea Set, not T-Set. PurplePlatypus 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Schaffner (evidently erroneously) had them as T-Set, so that's why I changed it when I was going through and referencing the article. I don't have Mason's book yet... can you give me a page number from his book so the correct name can have a proper citation? - dharmabum 02:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you. There's an early logo that clearly spells out "Tea" on page 20 and the running order for a multi-act bill that included them on page 30. I haven't checked the text in detail (the book doesn't have an index, which would be very nice for stuff like this) as the first reference to the name would be ideal, but the name change also takes place on page 30, and is as the article describes it (it better be - I'm the one who added that bit in its current form, and that's what I was going by). PurplePlatypus 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with the p. 30 reference, as the name change is the most important bit. Thanks a bunch. - dharmabum 22:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Echoes Hub

The situation seems to be resolved, and the user blocked indefinitely.
—Rotring 22:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In harmony with Dharmabum420's actions towards that matter, I've beem removing Echoes Hub from some Pink Floyd related articles (Pink Floyd, David Gilmour, Roger Waters, Syd Barrett), but it keeps making its way back in. Maybe we should get close to a consensus, to (try to) avoid constantly editing the pages back and forth: is this link worth mentioning or not, in a featured article candidate? My opinion is that it is not , on the grounds that:

1. it is not a true website, but rather an access point to P2P trading of illegal material (ROIO: "Although a copyright violation case could be made against possessors and distributors of ROIOs, most record companies (so far) have not done so, viewing such 'rarities' trading as harmless provided that they are not being done for profit. This could change however, at any time.")
2. WP:EL: "What should not be linked to: (...) 3. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming."

People? Rotring 15:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• That's a pretty clear statement ("Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates"). Good enough for me. Joey Q. McCartney 02:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to leave an edit summary, but see above for reason I deleted the link. Joey Q. McCartney 02:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This site is in conjunction with all legal issues of music trading. It is perfectly legal to own and make copies of demo songs, live recordings, interviews etc. and trade them with "friends" over the Internet. Most other sites on the resoucers link promote the Echoes Hub. The Echoes Hub provides concert information, forums, chat, external links of it's own newsletter. - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

You forgot to sign: 71.242.208.204, i.e., the user who's been adding the link. And, from where I stand, this kind of trade is not legal, record companies just haven't bothered with the matter (attention: this is how understand it, I'm not saying that it is right or wrong); but what really matters, in my opinion, is that the legality is questionable, and might bring problems to the feature article candidacy of the article. If I am wrong or being excessively alarmed, I am welcome to neutral enlightment thereto. Until then, as a sign of my good faith, I won't remove the link. - Rotring 17:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

All links that offer any types of downloads of material that is in question should be removed from the wiki list. Echoes Hub should not be singled out. This means ALL external links must be removed, which I and everyone else will be totally against. It would not take much time to show cause of each external link on the wiki site is offering concert information and download location information for these concerts. On the other hand, this service that is provided by Echoes Hub not only enchances the sales of Pink Floyd official material, but offers younger music lovers a chance to hear material that they cannot hear anywhere else. It is well known amongst traders that Pink Floyd's stance on unoffical material is not a hot topic, and they would rather their unofficial material be traded for free, rather than sold by bootleggers. This situation has been idle for 30 years and you are now beating a dead horse. Record companies are not an issue with this, because they do not own the recordings, the thousands of tapers themselves do. Now if we were talking official material then I agree there were would be a huge issue with this. - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

That's bullshit, you know it's bullshit, and regardless of that there's a rule against posting your own site anyway. It's referred to as linkspam and isn't allowed on Wikipedia, so go away. PurplePlatypus 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you've taken a look at the site, but you have to download a P2P app to use the site at all. Even regardless of the legal issues related to the site or the fact the site operator is the one adding it:

WP:EL What should not be linked to: (...) 7. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.

It seems to me that WP:EL is very unambiguous about this issue. - dharmabum 20:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Take your foul mouth elsewhere please. The Echoes Hub provides concert roio information, forums, chat, and it's own newsletter. It does not require any app to use the site. The site is over 800 pages and growing. I do not know if you viewed the site but it is standard html - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

Let's see; your ROIO information isn't authoratative; your forums recieve less than 2 posts per day; you chat is tied to the 3rd-party application; and your newsletter has three issues in a little over a month, mostly advertising what your site has to offer, the benefits of your P2P software and soliciting donations. Seriously, give it up, your link will never be considered acceptable by the WP community unless it becomes far more popular, and even then, the legal issues involved in ROIO trading will probably keep it out of the WP. - dharmabum 08:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: Wikipedia has policies that prohibit

• Posting links to your own site
• Using Wikipedia as a way of advertising your site or product (free or not)
• Posting links to illegal sites (which yours is, period, regardless of your nonsensical defense of it - and when I see bullshit, which pretty much everything you've claimed is, I'll call it bullshit as I please)
• Posting links to sites that require third-party applications to use
• Lying

The above pretty much sums up the whole reason you're here. Certainly your intentions have absolutely nothing to do with helping write an encyclopedia; you are here for the sole purpose of promoting your Web site. In other words, you are here exclusively to break multiple Wikipedia policies. You have nothing positive to contribute, you will not be listened to or taken seriously under any circumstances, you are not welcome here, and you will be blocked or banned if you don't leave voluntarily. GET LOST. PurplePlatypus 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the Three-revert rule. And by the way, the promotion link extends not only to the Pink Floyd-related articles I mentioned, but also to Bootleg recording. —Rotring 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"It does not require any app to use the site." — Wikipedia rules don't mention using the site, but rather, and I quote, "view the relevant content". Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the recordings are the relevant content (quoting again, this time quoting yourself: "The International Echoes Hub [...] is dedicated to the preservation of unofficial live recordings of Pink Floyd and their member's solo works from 1966 to the present."), and they do require a 3rd party application. —Rotring 16:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The site's front page makes it clear that it is primarily if not solely about p2p trading, notwithstanding the presence of a chat, a forum, a newsletter, and concert information (all of which appear to be primarily or solely about p2p trading, by the way). A special app is required if one wishes to download the music. Joey Q. McCartney 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC) See my comments further up in this section. Joey Q. McCartney 04:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How obviously ignorant you are. Almost all sites lilsted on the external links solicits donations, offer roios for download which makes them all illegal in yoru eyes. I am not here to promote my website as this website is not mine. I have helped work on it for over a year, and am one of the administrators thats all. I think adding a links to pro-active Pink Floyd Communities is something positive. A special app is required for 1/10th of that site. There are many more opportunites for other ventures, this is only a small part of it.

Now should I list each site on this wiki, the external links with DIRECT ILLEGAL downloads available and spell it out for you? The Echoes Hub offers nothing like this. In fact from your standpoint, I feel that you are purely targeting the Echoes Hub as proven by your allowance of these other sites. First by pointing out that it's forums get little use (uhhh maybe because they were just started a few weeks ago)? Hello? Anyone home?

And this will gladly be an issue taken up with wikipedia. And because of your targeting one community and letting others slide with more abhorrations, it will be an enjoyment to take 20, 30, 40 minutes to 2 hours of your day every day of the year to remove the echoes hub listing. Think of all the negative energy you are going to spend, and the time taken away from your work, family and hobbies by making sure that a listing is not under your authority (which you dont have). I see weeks....... weeks! And when the word is spread to hundred of members with access to change the wiki page how are you going to keep up?

Bottomline again is you are allowing other pages to be listed here under the same circumstances and are showing preferential treatment. Everything goes under these guidelines or nothing remains. You might call yourself balanced of judgement but you heavy winds are at your side. Please think more clearly and let's make a cooperative decision. No use to insult the website, that wont do you any good. It just makes you look worse. That website has almost 1000 pages of true factual information. It is also endorsed by each one of the other links here, proven to be a reliable community.

Why did Roger shout numbers during Pigs the 1977 tour? I'd like you to answer this question please. - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

How obviously persistent you are (and ignorance towards conveniently formatting and signing - with four tildes - your messages also proliferates). Now, directly addressing your points of view:

• You can list each site on this article that yada yada (that is, if it doesn't mean you'll take away time from work, family and hobbies), but the fact is: the doubtful legality of the content is just the tip of the reasons why the link is not worthy of figuring in any Wikipedia article, and we, in an effort (that you don't seem to value) of making Pink Floyd a featured article, specifically object that it has its place in this article. Like it was said more than once, WP:EL is very clear when it comes to needind a 3rd party application to view the relevant content, which, in the case of Echoes Hub, are Pink Floyd bootlegs (that's why you insist in putting your link both in Pink Floyd-related articles and in the Bootleg recording article; if your site is so much "more than P2P", why don't you submit the link to articles about Forums, Chat, etc., and see if it is welcome either?).
• Besides the 3rd party app issue, there's the self-promotion issue. You are lying when you say you are not affiliated with the website, and you also know I have e-mails of yours (one of them correspoding, verbatim, to one of your positngs here), and the address is far from misleading to the fact that you are the owner of the site.
• Your contribution history leaves no sign of doubt: you are not contributing to Wikipedia nor to this specifical article. You have added no content but the link, in bold, on the top of link lists, disrespecting common sense in geenral, Wikipedia etiquette in particular, and the 3RR even more in particular.
• Repeating myself again: don't think this is a cruzade for copyright protection or something against your site in particular; I'm just thinking in the best interest for the featuring of the article, and I think this applies to almost everybody else involved in this content dispute.
• Don't worry about our free time, nor with any of us having to "sleep next to the computer to prevent this". We're scattered along various time zones, so we can even make shifts.

Rotring 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to provide me answers for to the question I asked you (obviously ignorantly or trying to evade them). And to respond to your comments above, you are incorrect with many of your assumptions. Now you are making fun of my name? How childish you are if you much reach to levels of direct insults to the way someone or something looks.

Are you going to answer my question about the 1977 tour? Do you know the answer, being such a self proclaimed Pink Floyd expert that you are?

If you are going to remove listings for certain content, then for starters, each of the forums mentioned above has direct download links to similar material that is traded at the Echoes Hub. They are going to need to be removed as well. - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

Fun of your name? Where's that? If you are refering to the observation I made in one of the e-mails you sent me (there's talk pages, you know?), it was just an expression of enormous doubt that your name is... Marooned (nickname maybe; if it's a name, wow). Furthermore, nor have I ever proclaimed I'm a Floyd expert (and, last time I checked, that's what "self-proclaimed" is all about), nor is this discussion about Pink Floyd expertise, and that's why I simply ignored your question (on the grounds that it is completely off-topic). This is an article's discussion page, not a Pink Floyd bulletin board. Your participation in this discussion is turning from "defending the existance of a link in an article" to outright "trolling". —Rotring 17:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me enlighten you with a few facts. Although I speak directly to Marooned everyday and I can assure you I am NOT him. LOL For he wouldn't have had the decency to keep this conversation going for so long. He can't be bothered with the this and asked months ago if I would accept this role. It's just recently that you have gotten involved.

The reason why Roger shouted out numbers during Pigs on the 1977 Animals tour was so tapers and collectors could easily identify a recording. So again you are wrong with your assumption of it being off-topic. I had the luck to witness this myself as my Uncle explained what it meant (in California). From the sounds of it you are still learning about Pink Floyd from the help of books and transferring documents into this wiki. I sincerely respect how you are contributing the transfer of information but it has already been done you see. Long before wiki existed. You are re-inventing the wheel while forgetting an important factor when holding up your head in public. And that's equality.

http://www.neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk/roio/

After studying one of the links here. It looks like Neptune Pink Floyd has their own Bit Torrent (special 3rd party software) and RoIO section and you seem to have no problem with allowing them to list their "illegal material" here. Wiki has been notified of this and you can be certain your showers of negativity will rain on your entire battle of self-proclamation. Oh that's right you proclaimed you are NOT an expert of Pink Floyd which now questions me on your existence in this topic. I see you feel you are doing a good duty to your fellow americans but then again... so did George Bush right? - Pink_Floyd_For_Free

The Neptune Pink Floyd site contains current Pink Floyd news in addition to various ROIOs. I don't think that this would violate the External links policy, as the site can function as a reference without the use of 3rd party software, unlike EchoesHub. InTheFlesh? 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, nobody here is an "expert" on Pink Floyd, which is the entire point of Wikipedia - we are all well-informed fans with different information or topics of expertise, who by collaborating produce a quality article. Second, Rotring is Portugese, so your completely inappropriate jibe about George W. Bush is pretty far off the mark. Last, WP:EL is clear that you don't have to be the actual site operator to be spamming, just affiliated with them, and you yourself said that you are here on his behalf. Please stop this pointless argument. A consensus of editors with long histories of useful contributions to the Wikipedia has determined your site is not appropriate for the Wikipedia according to the relevant policy, and you're here for only one purpose - to promote a website on behalf of its operator. You've been warned about link spamming by an administrator uninterested in the Pink Floyd article itself, as well. Your site will not be appearing here for the forseeable future. Instead of fighting with people on talk pages about link spamming, how about trying to make some useful contributions to the Wikipedia? - dharmabum 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice PFFF has been asked by two different administrators - much more politely than I was able to bring myself to do - to stop violating Wikipedia policies. Thus far he has not responded. PurplePlatypus 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (As for the whole legality issue - bottom line, the site's primary, bordering on exclusive, purpose is distributing creative work without the permission of the copyright holder. Any claim otherwise is disproved by the very text of the link this edit war is about and by PFFF's own choice of Wikipedia handle. It is possible, for all I know, that the copyright holder chooses to turn a blind eye to, or even tacitly approves of, such activity - I doubt it, but I can't prove it's false - but for our purposes it doesn't matter. Legally the lack of explicit permission is the only relevant consideration. Frankly if PFFF is not aware of that he shouldn't be running or promoting such a site. His notion of copyright law can only be described as mythological.)

PurplePlatypus, copyright is, indeed, a somewhat shady area; it is possible for an artist to turn his head to the bootlegs as a copyright infringement, but then there would have to be a list of "Artists for whom bootlegs are OK", which is absurd. Despite that, copyright is secondary here; the whole point can be restricted to what Wikipedia policies concern, like it is in the block request: 3RR, self-promo, 3rd party and, as of lately, personal attack — quite enough. —Rotring 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It can be unambiguous at times - take a look at bt.etree.org or archive.org, which provide torrents or downloadable files of concerts by audience taping-friendly bands such as The Grateful Dead or Dave Matthews Band, which include documentation of permission from the bands or their lawyers. But in absence of a statment from Floyd or their legal representatives, ROIO trading is just not legal, and if they fully approved of it, there's nothing stopping them from giving Internet traders legal permission to do it - at which point our friend's site would be redundant, as the large, established legal sites like those above would begin carrying them. - dharmabum 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Enough with the reverberated insults. I am Marooned, the owner of Echoes Hub. If you have mistakenly identified another party as me I apologize. I just read through the above bantering and it appears to be a pissing match between two hard headed parties, not directly influenced by Wiki standards and only using certain Wiki standards as a defense mechanism when applicable. This is not right and those involved with the direct insults are having their leadership skills questioned.

At this time I would insist that all parties in the above debate, recognize their sophmoric behavior by forgetting who is wrong and who is right and take this personal battle away from the facts. If anyone has any questions or comments about Echoes Hub please direct everything towards myself. Thank you very much.

This is what I have experienced: Months back, someone had notified me that a few of our sister sites had been linked here and my site should be too. It's been in the build state for two years and constantly updated. I came here and checked it out and told them go ahead. Turned out they are not too savvy and never did it. I asked one of the moderators to take care of it then, because I wasn't supposed to. If this was in error of rules I apologize.

However, this is far from the current problem. The current problem is that although a few Wiki Pink Floyd members here have great writing skills which may be somewhat impressive, they impressions been over shadowed by sarcasm and predjudism in which I dont want to be a part of. I don't want to be associated with those who are inexperienced with trading and running a listing site. This is what has happened here, plain and simple. Creativity and ignorance are what make common man and I sure hope you all revitalize yourselves after reading this as it will be an important step to take while going through puberty in the world of Pink Floyd. Remember when you're father told you, "Son, someday you'll understand". ?

With that being said, I am not arguing for Echoes Hub to be listed here. I am arguing my witnessing your constant necessity of purging "certain wiki violations policies" under special homemade created rules for this particular instance. This was immature and blantantly obvious. You were unable to control your emotions that were allowed to be entertwined with your work.

I posted here to brandish a new heightened awareness for you. Not argue with pig headed, inconsistent capturings of certain sentences of the wiki guidelines and use them to my advantage. You should be ashamed.

But who am I to tell you this?

Forget Echoes Hub's listing here. But let's do one thing together. Let's find common ground with all the positive and negative aspects of the external links listed here by outlining each of the current listed external sites, what they include, and how they differ from each other when it comes to what each party interprates as legal. - This may take a few days but you are not afraid of a little hard work are ya fellas? I mean it's for the welfare of your true inner composure to yourself and benefit of wiki readers right?

One should always want to search for the light, the truth, and want to help others. If a person is not willing to do any of that, then they surely do not have the capacity to be making management-like decisions for others do they?

I need help and am asking you directly to help me.

My first request: Please help me identify why it is ok for other sites to have downloads of recordings available from their website to be listed here, but not ok for Echoes Hub to be listed here and there are no downloads available from www.echoeshub.com ?

- Marooned

I would prefer not to open this can of worms again. Bear in mind that this argument sparked an admin to strip all of the external links out of the article, and I don't think anyone particularily wants that. It got out of hand through several tempers, both from Wiki editors and your moderator. It's worth noting to someone not overly familiar with Wikipedia that it came in the middle of a Featured Article review, which is one of the most intensive processes you can go through and something that could endanger the process can cause tempers to flare. I apologize for letting mine get out of hand, and for getting involved in the debate about legality (I'm an avid ROIO collector, and although I think legality could still be a problem for Wikimedia, I have no problems with it myself).

The main problem I have with Echoes Hub in regards to Wikipedia external link policy is that it requires DC++ software to take advantage of. Neptune Pink Floyd, which also has ROIO's available, has many other resources (photos, news, etc), but we both know that Echoes Hub is primarily there for ROIO trading (yes, there's a newsletter, forum and concert info, but they supplement the trading and are not entirely exclusive of it). Sites which even use Flash are frowned on by WP:EL, let alone software as specialized as DC++ (which is only available to Windows users, further cutting the number of browsers who can use the link down). If Echoes Hub had reasonably high forum traffic or other Floyd resources to speak of it would be fine, but in absence of those, it's tough to justify its inclusion. - dharmabum 21:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So if I put two colons in here will it indent? We will see. Ok, fair enough Dharmabum420. Looks as if you did take the time to check out the site and thats appreciated. The site was originally just informational content on how to get on the hub two years ago, but has grown at a phenominal rate in the last year. The message forums are new, the newsletters are only bi-monthly and the rest of the site was built around the focus of trading. I think the best bet would be to remove this article as well, if you feel wiki would not benefit from the mentioning of the site until the site was promoted at a different angle which I doubt it will be in the future. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. I apologize for the inconsistencies spoken above and sure do not want our site to be further interuptions with your work.

If I may make one suggestion... I think there is possibility for more intense articles here as this site has primarily focused on the basics. How do you feel about using some excerpts from Inside Out and other books including the scanning of more pics? Are there space limitations? - Marooned

There would be copyright issues with excerpting books, of course. Remember that this one of many encyclopedia articles on the Wikipedia, not an in-depth fan site with detailed information of interest to an avid 20-year fan. Look at it this way: the article should be able to fully inform someone about the band who doesn't know a thing about them, without being so long as to turn them off getting through it. Take a look at how detailed this article is compared to Floyd's entry in Encyclopedia Britannica as your basis of comparison.

Take a look at another Wikipedia article like, say, dinosaur. If you want to know something about dinosaurs, you'll learn a lot from this article. But if it was written to teach people with graduate degrees in paleontology something new, you'd be turned off the article rapidly as it would be too detailed. - dharmabum 21:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition: that's funny, the direct link to that Britannica article doesn't show the full text, but if you go to it from this Google search, it does. - dharmabum 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing album titles as subheadings

I've been toying with the idea of removing the album title subheadings from the article, for a few reasons: I think it would flow better, it would really shorten the rather ungainly table of contents, and I'm not sure they're necessary since a picture of the album cover (with a link to the article about the album) appears next to each chunk talking about it. What do you think? You can take a peek at what it would look like in my sandbox. - dharmabum 20:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Even some details about the albums could be spared for the Pink Floyd discography and/or each albums article, to try and lighten our 54kB article. ;) — Rotring 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do it then... as for removing some details about the albums, all that really might need to go is specifics about the album, as opposed to how the music of a given album fits into their style, sound and evolution. Since one of the biggest criticisms on the FA review is not enough description of their sound, we need to be careful about removing anything along those lines. - dharmabum 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it's "specifics about the album" that I'm talking about, nothing more — like the extensive list of what each one of DSoTM's songs is about (that's a bit beyond describing their sound), or whose dog was Seamus. —Rotring 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about removing the stuff on DSoTM's songs, so you made up my mind. :) And the "Seamus" one is great, the lack of reference for that statement was bugging me anyway. - dharmabum 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My last edit

My edit summary got cut off because I accidentally hit Enter too soon; it was meant to go on to point out that Pigs on the Wing, at least, is also a love song. (I think Green is the Colour is too.) PurplePlatypus 09:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue of Floyd love songs is contentious, and I have no problem with hedging that "Pillow of Winds" is one of "few". The debate is around whether it's the only absolutely straight-up "love song", as opposed to the notes of desperation and sexual gratification that colour "Pigs on the Wing", or the one night stands of "Stay" and "Summer '69"... but I've always felt that "Green Is the Colour" is a love song as well, despite the stalker-like intentions that many in the Floyd fan community attribute to it.

On your last edit, though... do you really feel that "Fearless" has country overtones? My wording was ambiguous, but I meant that statement to sound more like this:

The mellow feeling of the next three albums is very present on "Fearless", and the album displays a country influence in the prominent slide guitar of "A Pillow of Winds"...

Rather than what I actually wrote:

The mellow feeling of the next three albums is very present on "Fearless", and it displays a country influence in the prominent slide guitar of "A Pillow of Winds"...

I realized that was probably the intention, but the twangy guitar at the beginning of Fearless practically begs for a "yee-haw!!!", at least to my ear. I always thought that song (along with Free Four) was the obvious place to attribute country influence to Floyd; by contrast it would never occur to me to laber A Pillow of Winds that way. (Also, why just that one, if slide guitar is your criterion? There's at least as much slide guitar on, say, High Hopes, or more relevantly in this context One of These Days, and I don't think I know anyone who would describe either of those songs as sounding country-ish.) PurplePlatypus 07:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's more the style of the slide guitar in "A Pillow of Winds", that really lap-steel country sound, almost a Hawaiian kind of vibe, while the slide in the other songs you mentioned is much more bluesy, the kind of stuff Duane Allman excelled at. I hadn't thought enough on the finer distinctions, but I think changing the phrase "slide guitar" in the article to "lap steel", or maybe "pedal steel", would get the country association across more clearly. Gilmour actually plays a pedal steel, which has distinct country associations, although the sound he generates when using it on songs like "One of These Days" is far more blues than country. So, to sum up, referring to "Fearless" as country sounding is fine by me, but the change to "pedal steel" would probably clarify what I'm talking about on "A Pillow of Winds" (and later, "Breathe" and even "The Great Gig in the Sky") a lot more. - dharmabum 08:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Fearless" has a bit of a country tinge, maybe, but I'm tempted to just attribute the country sound to the slide guitar of "Pillow of Winds"... thoughts? - dharmabum 10:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fan site quarrels

There seems to be a nasty quarrel over which fan sites should be listed and which should not. Well, a simple solution is to list none! I deleted the fan site list and I invite you to keep it off the article until you stop quarreling and removing links to rival sites. Thanks. David.Monniaux 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any quarrelling between rival sites in the last several months, just a minor one about WP:EL suitability of "Another Link on the Wall" and a large quarrel about a site administrator who was blocked indefinitely for linkspamming this and other articles with a clearly unsuitable site according to WP:EL. As most or all of the links removed are either long-established sources or top 20 Google hits, I'm restoring them. There's always going to be arguments about external links on any article about a subject with a large following, but removing established resources like the Echoes mailing list, which has been around for 20 years, doesn't improve the article. - dharmabum 23:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

With this latest debacle, I'm reversing my earlier position and agree. WP:EL makes it clear that fan sites are sometimes tolerated, but not necessary. It would be fine to have a few if it didn't lead to any disruption, but these silly revert wars about external links just take time away from actually making an encyclopedia and take up the talk page with a bunch of meaningless nonsense. I've re-removed all of the external links (except the official websites), and I regret not seeing your point to begin with. - dharmabum 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am contacting a admin, your out of control at the very least the page that held all the links should be present. IE a list of links to fansites like Another link in the WallOnanisland 23:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)