Jump to content

Talk:Pink Floyd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.143.153.13 (talk) at 23:45, 28 November 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articlePink Floyd is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
February 15, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Music Portal Featured Article

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

FAQ


Worldwide Sales

The lead said they have sold over 250 million albums worldwide but the cite for that claim says 200 million. I changed the number to correspond with the citation used. I also changed the hyperlink linking the phrase "most successful and influential" to the list of Best Selling Music Artists to be only the words "most successful," since record sales have little to do with influence, as evidenced by comparing the record sales of, say, Matchbox 20 and the Velvet Underground, among a host of other examples. 74.77.208.52 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT REVERT. The cite says 200 million, not 250 million. 74.77.208.52 21:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit is continuously being reverted for no good reason and with no commentary to provide a rationale. This is completely inappropriate. There is zero justification for claiming 250 million albums sold when the cite used to back it up claims 200 million. Stop reverting. 74.77.208.52 21:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed this back to 200 million as the citation still shows this figure and not 250m Deckchair 14:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Pink Floyd

Is there anybody out there interested in re-launching the whole project? Doktor Who 02:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah im interested what would that involve though? and do we need to relaunch it? Ummagumma23 04:02 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I am also interested. Finally I actually have time to do it. Coq Rouge 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ummagumma23 and Coq Rouge. Most of Pink Floyd-related articles have been written without, or just with little, involvment of the Wikiproject, nevertheless further goals can be reached. Soon I'm going to post some short msgs, and, within some days, new proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd. Any question posted at my talk page would be very welcome.Doktor Who 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can get a lead that doesn't look like it was written by Roger Waters. 74.77.208.52 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with the lead? Zazaban 05:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is fine although id like to see the other members of the band prehaps recognised in the lead but i understand that most people feel that Waters is the leader and so should have priority.Ummagumma23 08:54 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I can agree that to a certain degree, the lead is to focused on Waters. But, as Waters was the leader of the band in their most influencal period, it is also wrong not to have focus on him. As long as the rest of the article is balanced, there is nothing wrong with the lead focusing slightly more on Waters than the rest. The final line of the lead could probably be changed slightly to balance it. The classical lineup played together for the first time in 24 years on 2005-07-02 at the London Live 8 concert, playing to Pink Floyd's biggest audience ever. might be better than the one currently there. Coq Rouge 13:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millenium?

Forgive my ignorance, but I recently saw someone with a Pink Floyd "Millenium" t-shirt. I had heard something about it before, but I don't know what "Millenium" is. It's not listed under Wikipedia's PF discography or live shows... could someone tell me what it is? And to help out ignorant people like me, possibly stick in some information in Wikipedia? Thanks- Gerafin 02:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this t-shirt your talking about? My guesses would go to either a cover band, unlicensed stuff, official merchendice either in connection with a tour or other, or just fan stuff. There are bunches of stuff out there. I have never heard of any PF album named Millenium, or refered to as such, so it's not that. Might be some commercial stuff with a millenium re-release. Not worthy of mentioning in the article anyhow. Coq Rouge 06:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing images/audio?

The top of the page proudly announces the fact that "This article includes inline links to audio files". How many are there now? One. I noticed on one of the archives that the uploader had neglected to include fair use rationales.

But I can live without sample audio. The thing which confuses me now is that there are now no album covers. The main body of text now looks profoundly dull. Is there any reason, other than the fact that we'd need to go through and add a second (very similar) fair use rationale to each image, why we shouldn't re-add the images to the article? Una LagunaTalk 10:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted images cannot be used for decoration, even in (for instance) discographies. There is even some controversy about whether album covers can be used on album pages if the cover art itself is not a subject discussed in the article (cf. Sgt. Pepper). Relevant linkage:
We'd probably have better luck with audio samples. All that was needed were good fair-use rationales. / edg ☺ ★ 10:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick response! That makes sense, thanks. Una LagunaTalk 10:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Haven't checked this article in a while. When I last did it, I'm sure there were lots more pictures. The article looks dull and boring without anything nice to look at. What happened to them all?

Given the beauty of their art work, I agree some more should be included--Jacobwilliamson 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as someone convinces the owners of Pink Floyd art to license it for GFDL-compatible free use. Until then, we have to work within fair use restrictions. / edg ☺ ★ 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zabriskae point

Why is this missing from the lsit of Albums (albeit perhaps caveated by someone who knows more than I about the band)?

See http://www.pinkfloyd.net/albums/?album=50 where it's clearly a Pink Floyd album as I recalled —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonMWatts (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discography on the bottom of the page that includes Zabriskie Point (album) under "soundtracks", along with Obscured by Clouds and Music from the Film More. Zabriskie Point is a multi-artist soundtrack/collection, and is as much a Jerry Garcia album as a Pink Floyd album. / edg ☺ ★ 16:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's not entirely a PF album, as over half of it is by other artists. Doc Strange 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animals bass

I heard from an unreliable source that David Gilmour played all the bass parts on Animals. If this is true it should be included in both articles. 75pickup (talk · contribs) 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Floyd Encyclopedia by Vernon Fitch says Gilmour played bass on "Sheep" and "Pigs (Three Different Ones)", but Waters provided bass on "Dogs". --Bongwarrior 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Haven't checked this article in a while. When I last did it, I'm sure there were lots more pictures. The article looks dull and boring without anything nice to look at. What happened to them all?

Given the beauty of their art work, I agree some more should be included--Jacobwilliamson 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I beat you to the asking of the question. Una LagunaTalk 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd's year of formation

There are a few sites on the web that state that Pink Floyd was formed in 1964, but most sites I have read state 1965. I put a weblink for All Music Guide, which states Floyd formed in 1965. To my knowledge, the band was known as Sigma 6/Screaming Abdabs, etc in 1964 and did not become Pink Floyd (The Pink Floyd sound, etc.) until 1965. Does anyone have proof (Nick Mason's book, perhaps) that states the year the group was formed? I would love to know so that we can keep this article as accurate as possible. Tkd73 22:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The band itself formed in '64 or so as Sigma 6, then Screaming Abdads and became Tea Set in early '65. When the band discovered that another band had it (and they were OPENING for them), they changed their name to The Pink Floyd Sound after two obscure bluesman in 1965. Doc Strange 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This featured article needs images, and the references do not contain access dates. – Ilse@ 18:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a ton of images, but they were all deleted. We really need to loosen up on image regulations. Zazaban (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Main Picture

The main picture is a pig now? Whose idea was this? --86.143.153.13 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_Floyd&oldid=174482880"