Talk:Daft Punk

Anime in relation to Daft Punk?

Is it just me or are the members of Daft Punk fans of Anime? A lot of the Daft Punk videos on YouTube are Daft Punk audio played over various Anime, are these official videos or just fan made? I'm assuming that most are fan made, but it is hard to find the actual official videos if this is the case. This article doesn't mention anything about Anime, so perhaps there is nothing to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullo exclamation mark (talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Daft Punk produced the feature-length anime film Interstella 5555 featuring their album Discovery as its soundtrack. It's essentially a music video of the entire album. just64helpin (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Another album?

So far, Daft Punk has released their studio albums a consistant 4 years apart from each other. So another one should be released this year. Are there even rumors containing any further information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.101.78 (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit:) Hm, I don't suppose this would say anything more than what we already know? http://www.onemoredisco.com/news/new-daft-punk-album/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.101.78 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What, no one has anything to say? 72.135.101.78 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to paraphrase what you said, it doesn't say anything more than what we already have in the article. just64helpin (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But I'm getting so bored! I wish SOMETHING new would happen. D= 72.135.101.78 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Their website has been rather blank lately, yet bing previews it with an old mention of their "new" 2006 or whatever album. They have a nifty boxset of Interstella for sale, though. 98.145.211.102 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

http://fistintheair.com/2012/08/26/daft-punk-album-cover-leaked-possible-2013-tour/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.141.120 (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

War?

Just64Helpin, you seem to be having a bit of an edit war? 72.135.101.78 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my most recent edits to the article. If so, I'll explain: Leftovers is an unofficial compilation that was mistakenly added to the iTunes Store and subsequently removed from the store. The "Darlin'" subheading is redundant and unneeded (see WP:MOS for further info on formatting). Lastly the "Yama Dirty Crew" bit was unsourced and brings up zero hits in Google. In short, it isn't so much an edit war as it is the result of excessive littering in an underwatched page. just64helpin (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the info. 72.135.101.78 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Space's influence on Daft Punk

Just wondering why there is no mention of French Band, Space as Daft Punk clearly drew their persona / stage presence / costumes from this band, even if they don't mention this. I suggest watching 'Magic Fly' (by Space) video on Youtube as an illustration. I think that this article would be richer for a mention of the similarities of the two bands and lead those who visit this page to investigate Space further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyphonix (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Such a comparison would be considered original research. Please see WP:NOR for further information. just64helpin (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."

Ok this is not my subjective view, I should have elaborated that certain individuals in the music press and industry have expressed the same opinion of which I can locate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyphonix (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the cited information would probably go in the "Influences" section. just64helpin (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Influenced by Kraftwerk

There are much influence by the band Kraftwerk. Both of them had a Song called Aerodynamik. And there is this Robot Human thing which is similar to Kraftwerks "Mensch" "Maschiene". And read this interview. http://www.intro.de/news/newsfeatures/23041569/daft-punk-exklusiv-im-interview --188.194.174.227 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

News

Here's some new information about... um, Daft Punk stuff. I don't really know what to say other than check it out: http://www.exclaim.ca/articles/generalarticlesynopsfullart.aspx?csid1=132&csid2=844&fid1=38374 72.135.101.78 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the Thomas Bangalter article. just64helpin (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference overhaul

Who else wants to go through all of the references and see is they work? There's a couple of sources already marked as dead links and have been for a couple months now. I think it's time to look for new sources or just remove the statements. Here's a link to the external link checker. I do have to note there's one link on there marked as dead but it's really not. I might start checking the external links sometime later today and into tomorrow. Any issues that come up about it, just shoot a message to me or in this conversation below. Douglasr007 (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Years in subsection

I don't think the years should in included as it's really hard to brand an era to the year as some events could have fell into two eras. Also, would it be safe to introduce a new subsection in the sense of "eras." The Human After All era is most certainly done and over with. We could brand the era with Alive 2007 so there's enough information to warrant the era. Then, the most present thing as an era is them doing the film score for Tron Legacy.

I don't know. It just seems weird to section the history of Daft Punk just simply by albums. Agree or disgree? Douglasr007 (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree - removing the years would be confusing for readers looking for a specific timeframe. It'd be safer to simply have a "recent projects" section for post-HAA material. If I recall correctly, Alive 2007 is considered part of the HAA era, both conceptually and musically. just64helpin (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah I was saying we could merge Alive 2007 info to the Human After All era but yeah everything looks good now. Thanks. Douglasr007 (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the way the "era" system is now, is about the most incredibly effective ways to describe the history of Daft Punk. It really should stay the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.110.17 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Daft Punk samples

Shouldn't it be mentioned that DP took most of their hooks from older songs? They just repitched whole songs etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.4.222 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See their album articles. Douglasr007 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kate's Birthday Party

There's a rumor that they will be playing at Kate's Birthday Party, a Facebook event that has over 63,000 confirmed guests.--ILoveSky (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Appearances in media and tributes" section

I have noticed that this section has become increasingly long, redundant and somewhat unmanageable. Beginning sometime tomorrow I will attempt to rework the section into prose instead of the current bulleted list. Feel free to leave any comments you have on the matter here. jhsounds (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that the section is becoming something that is against WP:TRIVIA. Yousou (report) 12:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reworked the section. More work needs to be done, but I think this at least distinguishes it from being a trivia section. jhsounds (talk)

Removing Banner?

I just now edited the lead to be a better overview. Is it good enough to remove the banner? Lucasoutloud (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Work on and appearance in TRON: Legacy

Please add information on their work on the score for TRON: Legacy and their appearance in the movie (as MP3 programs/DJs).--PENJrAV8R (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Both the score and their cameo are already mentioned in the article. jhsounds (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Eras and section titles

Hi. I just wanted to settle some recent confusion regarding the section titles and use of the word era. It was my understanding that the point of the eras was to concisely organize the "History" section by dividing it into subsections about their studio album releases, including all material related to those album releases. For example, Homework was complemented by a series of singles and several music videos, and the D.A.F.T. release that compiled those videos; therefore the album, singles, music videos and D.A.F.T. are included concisely in the "Homework era" subsection. The period in which the duo produced the music and videos is also cited in sources. The determination of "era" has nothing to do with what kind of masks they wore, and requires no original research. jhsounds (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Daft Punk Faces

As said in their interview, they'd rather not have their faces revealed. And We as a Wikipedia community are not a paparazzi or anything like that.

Even though it is maintained by the community, their page is still their page. If they don't want their faces seen, I heavily suggest removing them. If someone wants to see their faces they can go to some other site that doesn't care about people's privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kryticate (talk • contribs) 06:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone re-added it... Don't know how to use wikipedia, but could you remove it? 98.145.211.102 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Photos of the duo without masks can be found easily in a multitude of places. Wikipedia is therefore not violating WP:BLP in this manner. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and removing a photo based solely on the artists preference is not a valid reason. Please refrain from removing the photograph from the page. jhsounds (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The photos of their faces are NOT directly related to Daft Punk as a band, rather related directly to the artists behind the band. Daft Punk has intentionally disassociated their faces from their band persona, therefore the photos of their faces are off-topic for inclusion in this page. Photos of their faces would more appropriately belong on their personal bio pages (on which they do not appear, as of the time of this post).--PENJrAV8R (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that their faces do not directly represent the music duo, which explains the helmets. It shouldn't be included in the the name of their duo. It would be the same as if there were an article that focused on the outer body of a car model, and then right below it would be a picture of the motor and inner-working components of a the same make but from 10 years in the past. It's irrelevant and doesn't makes sense to the article talking about the outer body. Yes the picture does reference the source of who Daft Punk are behind their artistic faces, but the article is about Daft Punk as a duo, not individual people. The artists individual pages should have their pictures, as it is biographical information. Kaigenji (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Daft Punk willingly provided photos of their faces in the earlier years of the career, as a duo. Therefore the "off topic" argument is rendered moot regardless of the fact that the duo decided on wearing masks later. The previous point still stands: removing a photo solely on the artist's preference is an invalid reason and generally bad form. jhsounds (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can source this then gladly keep the picture on the page, otherwise it's subject to removal no matter how strong your argument may be. As for the "mootness" of others' arguments, not everyone is writing that "removing a photo solely on the artist's preference" is in fact a valid point. Kaigenji (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You can probably just search for press kits of the period, but for ease of clarity, they willingly showed themselves for this periodical for example. jhsounds (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So as it stands right now I understand that jhsounds argues: Since Daft Punk had revealed their face prior to officially disassociating their faces with the Duo, their pictures should not be removed. Where I agree that this is totally valid conclusion—the level of, I guess, "correctness"—seems not. As said by PENJrAV8R, Daft Punk has officially removed its faces from the artists that form the Duo, so it doesn't make sense to include them (the faces) if officially they are not included to be a part of the duo. As far as I can tell Daft Punk has structured themselves in the following: [Daft Punk](Duo)----composed of---->[Artists](With disassociation of actual identity)----composed of---->[People](the actual people behind the helmets).

It's just like the Blue Man group minus many people playing as the three artists. Each Blue Man(?) is apart of the of the official "Blue Man Group", but the actual identity behind the Blue Men are not physically known. (i.e. their faces.) Kaigenji (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This is eerily similar to the Mohammad article situation. I suggest you visit the Mohammad FAQ and read what it has to say about pictures, censorship and their overall relevance to WP. Given that the picture is of the artists, the relevance to the article is obvious. Removing pictures simply due to the artists feelings would be censorship.Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. Festus Mcracken 21:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festus Mcracken (talk • contribs)

First off please do not claim what others have said if they haven't said it. I'm not arguing for censorship. "Removing pictures simply due to the artists feelings would be censorship.Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."--I don't understand how you even came close to this? Where the heck do I say that I am trying to benefit a group? STOP ASSOCIATING THIS ENTIRE THREAD TO CENSORSHIP. THIS HAS BEEN RESOLVED.

As for "Given that the picture is of the artists, the relevance to the article is obvious." Why isn't the entire cast of individuals in the blue man group posted on their page?Kaigenji (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Skipping over the ignorance, I had previously stated that it is in my favor for creating Individual biographical pages for Thomas and Guy-man with the picture included. Kaigenji (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone doesn't make a response within the next day or two, then I'm going to remove the NPOV and the photo as is only used to resolve disputes.

I was under the impression that a consensus was reached; removing the photo as a form of censorship or due to the artist's feelings is a no-no. Simply stating "then why doesn't X have a photo on that X article over there?" is a weak argument because it is using an unrelated article to prove a point. This discussion should be about making edits to this article. As a personal note, I have no further interest in the discussion and will make no more attempts to restore the image in question. jhsounds (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean seriously, the guy is not advocating for censorship. He just said putting DP into biographical pages makes sense since their physical image technically isn't officially associated with the duo. Not one person has realized this nor mentioned this as a possible outcome. It is censorship to hide an image, not move it around. jhsounds, that type of activity is not wanted in Wikipedia; if you are standing on the grounds of what you just said, then leave as it is not a positive influence on our community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.104.32.5 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL. Telling someone to leave can be seen as offensive. Thanks. jhsounds (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A random IP address that has no solid history on Wikipedia advocating that someone who has been here for 5+ years that they're not a "positive influence on 'our' community" ? I think we have found the definition of irony, folks. ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of respect for the duo, we should remove their faces from this article. There is a reason why they always say that they do not want their faces revealed, you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.204.139 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Daft Punk maskless, unknown date.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Daft Punk maskless, unknown date.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Daft Punk maskless, unknown date.jpeg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nicer photo

IMHO this photo is a lot better than most of the ones currently in the article. Perhaps it could replace one. I leave it up to the regular editors to decide - SimonLyall (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A reverse Google image search seems to suggest that this photo is owned by Jim Dyson/Getty Images, so there may be some upload fraud afoot on the part of Wikimedia. jhsounds (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Good spotting. I've tagged the image for removal. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"Genre" should have a little more

They've done more genres then just "House". And if it's gonna limit them to one genre at least get specific and say "French House" since they basically invented the genre. I'd also include disco, funk, electronica, and progressive rock. Their new album doesn't have any House on it.