# Talk:Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii

"During this song's performance, Mason loses a drumstick and keeps playing with one hand whilst retrieving another, without missing a beat." 
I don't really see the point of this sentence. All drummers lose sticks, that's why they always have a pot of them nearby. -- Unsigned statement made by 82.70.200.181, 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

> He does miss a beat too. About three of them. -- Unsigned statement made by Paradoxtwin, 00:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Just fixing some layout things...--67.11.33.166 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
He didn't "retrieve another" ... he could only "retrieve" the one he lost.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course he could retrieve another, you dont think he would have many spare sets of sticks right next to him? If you are comparing word usage of 'retrieve' versus 'pick up another', that is just a silly matter and not worth a debate.
Don't forget, the second half of Echoes. Nick actually breaks a stick and, really, without missing a beat, he tosses over his left shoulder, pulls another out and keeps going. Its near the end of the song, on the original content at least. The Director's cut with the fake wide screen cuts it out and uses parts from the first part of Echoes to fill it. But as the DVD has the original, it can be seen by all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.72.41 (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 

Quote: "... or pretended to record their album ..."
1. Pretend? This isn't verifiable, is it?
2. The film doesn't show the recording of the whole album, but the recording of some tracks only. So the above quote ("record their album") concludes from a wrong premise.
3. It's not unusual in the production process that tracks are being re-recorded during the works on the final mix-down. The fact that they were mixing at the time doesn't exclude that they were re-recording some guitar licks.
4. Gilmour is obviously nervous while he's recording that solo guitar bits. He's even wiping off the sweat from his hand on his trousers. He had to be a good actor in order to show this stressed feeling so authentically.
-- I'm new to Wikipedia, I don't want to edit right now, but I would replace those sentences by these ones:
"These sessions were filmed in January of 1973, the band had already started mixing the album at the time."
"A second version had additional footage of the band as they recorded some tracks for their album ..."
Cheers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suaheli (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 
Just a fan's viewpoint...I wouldn't be totally surprised if these scenes were staged, however, I was always under the impression these were overdubs for the quadrophonic LP version of Dark Side, something bands like the Floyd and the Who used to put out in the '70s.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.9.131 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 
A good point. Gilmour has claimed that these parts were "pretend" while Waters has used the same footage to verify his involvement in the recording of "On The Run".  I have both points of view in magazine articles.....somewhere! I agree about Gilmour's stress. It IS quite apparent.  On the other hand, none of the parts which we see in these clips ended up on the record: ie Gilmour's guitar lines on "Brain Damage" or Roger's take of "On the Run" as we see it in the film.  Even Wright's piano on "Us and Them" bears little resemblance to what ended up on Dark Side. I haven't been much help here have I?!  NH89.243.232.96 (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, your comment is helpful, especially if you're saying there's a source re "pretend". Perhaps Gilmour was nervous just because of the film production, not because of the album production. I don't know. – As for the tracks in the film not being on the record album: When you work in the studio for weeks and months, with dozens of multitrack channels, it's quite common that not all of those 1001 versions and experiments with licks and sounds get on the final product. I would be surprised if the tracks in the film were exactly the ones on the album. Why? The best takes usually happen when the camera is off. Cheers --Suaheli (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the way it's been on every single Pink Floyd album I've played on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The guitar licks Gilmour is seen recording can actually be heard on the rough mix of Brain Damage, recently released as part of the Immersion re-release of DSoTM. This leads me to believe that at least this bit of footage is genuine.Chebghobbi (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify the recent mild dispute about this, Adrian Maben directly said Nobs was an Afghan Hound in the DVD interview. Per WP policy, we use what the source tells us. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the dog is not an Afgan Hound. Going with what source tells you is a fine policy except in this case  what a source tells you  is not true and it can be disproven by watching the movie.  So unless it is an attributed text I cannot see how saying that it is an Afgan serves accuracy and truth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myszan76 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I have changed it to "dog", which I think we can all agree is correct and avoids any edit wars. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


### Initial comments
I've read through this article and made a few minor edits, but there is a {{citation needed}} flag in Legacy. I'm just going to work my way through the article one more time. Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was something that was there when I originally looked at the article to get it to GA status. Couldn't source it, so I removed it. An IP added it recently, so I tagged it to give them time to source it. I would remove the entire sentence that is tagged. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a fairly short article, so I'm just going to do an overall summary. There were a couple of points that came to the "fore" during my final but they are more in the way of comments:

In the Filming/Pompeii subsection I thought it might be useful to wikilink "24 track recorder" but that was not so easy as Multitrack recording is a general article and Ampex#16 and 24-track recorders is far more specific, but having checked all the references there was no way to know whether they were using Ampex (tm) equipment.
In the Outtakes section there is a mention of "Archives du Film du Bois D'Arcy near Paris", which seems to be Fort de Bois-d'Arcy, but the sources don't provide the necessary confirmation that they are the same. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative article.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
There is one non-free image, but justification for its use is given
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting this article up to GA standard. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the review quickly and diligently. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can Mcenedella (talk · contribs) explain why Nick Mason's autobiography is not a "good, reliable source"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure Ritchie333 (talk · contribs).  Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says that: "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
Mason and Manning are both published authors, from reliable, well-known publishers, and are not merely sharing their personal opinions, but relating a story that they have heard, and, given the context of their relationship, and the totality of their understanding of the person involved, found it plausible enough to pass along.  I'll also note that Nick Mason wrote his memoir himself, without, apparently, the use of a ghost writer, which can be a frequent source of embellishment.
So there's a good case for including the anecdote.
While the issue at hand is not a direct quotation, Wikipedia's policy on quotations is: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted."
In this case, neither Manning nor Mason report seeing the incident with their own eyes, or relate how they came to know about the incident.  Further, personal memoirs and band guidebooks do not "have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy."
The nature of the anecdote itself is somewhat implausible.  It may be believable that Waters would throw people, including people with whom he had a business relationship, out of a building.  If he were to say he did, the anecdote would warrant inclusion.
In the absence of a first hand account, we have to judge the merits of the story on its sourcing and plausibility.
Several characteristics of the story make it seem unlikely to have occurred:
- That an unnamed film mogul could make millions off "Live at Pompeii" despite there being no other signs of commercial success
- That a mogul able to make millions from a niche concert film, and then have a catastrophic personal encounter with the subject of the film, in the largest media market in the world, would remain nameless.
- That Waters would have been previously unaware of this powerful distributor.
"Make millions" -- the anecdote presumes that a business person, outside the official distribution of the film and audio, had sold sufficient copies of the material, or tickets to showings of the material, to make millions.  There is no support for this in official theater or record store statistics.  It seems unlikely that a bootlegger could make millions.
Nameless -- there is no record of this successful mogul, able to make millions off a niche film, anywhere else in the sources.  It seems unlikely that a New York film mogul would be able to perform such an achievement, but then remain silent about it.  One would expect that the trade press would at least mention this remarkable success.
Further, once this successful mogul is in the presence of Waters, and relates his tale, he is thrown out of the building.  This remarkable story -- two very successful men, engaged in a conflict over money, film, and music -- occurs in New York City.  New York, for the entire period since this film was produced, has been a media capital of the world, with an eager press that relies on salacious rumors, gossip, and anecdotes to fill its newspapers and airtime.  A conflict such as the one described would merit a mention in the trade or popular press.  
And even if the event somehow evaded the press, the mogul's name ought to be available if we are to publish in Wikipedia.
Unaware - either the mogul is an official distributor or a bootlegger.  Again, it seems unlikely that a bootlegger could make millions.  And it seems remarkable that, if Waters had done this to his official distributor, he or she would remain unnamed.
Apocryphal stories tend to be of this type -- an unnamed subject, light on details, that don't match up with a reasonable understanding of how relations in the area work.  Because an author shares in his memoirs a story, does not make that story worth including in Wikipedia.  If we took that line, the site would be littered with unsupportable anecdotes.  In the absence of plausibility, and specific sourcing, we should not include even first-person retelling of hearsay.
For this reason, our two sources fail the Wikipedia requirement for reliable sources. and this anecdote does not belong in the Wikipedia article for Pink Floyd, Live at Pompeii.
Mcenedella (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Flippin' heck, tl;dr - can an other editor summarise this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing Ritchie333 (talk · contribs): a second-hand story, even from the memoirs of a band member, is not good enough for Wikipedia.  Plus, the story sounds like a fishy tall tale -- do you really think we would've never heard the name of the multi-millionaire mogul that he threw out if this had really happened? Mcenedella (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I added this article to the West German films category, only to have my edit reversed by User:Ritchie333, who felt this was misleading as it was not filmed in Germany or with German personnel, etc.  While I can see where he's coming from, my argument is that film nationality is normally categorised by which countries financed the production. The article infobox already states Live at Pompeii was a French / Belgian / West German co-production, with a source from the BFI cited (this is also backed up by IMDb, although I'm aware that in itself isn't a reliable source). We already categorise the film under the French and Belgian categories, wouldn't it be consistent to include the third country? Jellyman (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the film crew is or where the director is from, or even the cast. Production countries are determined by where the production company is based. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
You can put Outer Mongolia in the infobox if you like. I don't care. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Dude. You don't have to be rude. I'm trying to make an article better and insulting me on a talk page is not really putting good faith that you want to discuss things and solve problems. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Per [[1]], "Insert an approximate time duration of the theatrical release of the film in minutes. [...] Do not include any additional run times, such as a director's cut or an unrated version, without consensus." I would not advise to include extra runtimes here. There have been various cuts of the film, but listing every cut without letting users understand where they can get these longer versions (i.e: home video? one time theatrical release? lost versions?) is not helpful without context. I'm suggesting following the infobox standards and returning it to the original theatrical runtime, and letting prose explain further runtimes. Either that, or leave runtime out of the infobox and let the prose explain the cuts that people will more likely see today. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've got a better idea, get rid the infobox altogether. If people start arguing about infoboxes (eg: random example) then you really are best off sticking them in the bin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I've compared the article both with an infobox, and without. I absolutely agree with its removal.  It offers us nothing that the lead already doesn't. CassiantoTalk 14:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the "if its not my rules, i'm packing up my ball and going home" style as I think its more simple to not cover information that is contentious in the infobox. Since it appeared to be simply over a running time, why not just drop the running time? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I've got a rip of my decades old video (I don't have the DVD, but I borrowed it for improving this article some time back) and it's 64 minutes according to that. I don't mind infoboxes in articles provided (and this is really important) the information is stable and uncontested. Otherwise I just slink into despair and wonder if there's a brick wall I can bang my head against instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
To me, the infobox looks perfectly strong and stable. Quite happy to leave it in, omit running time from it and explain variants in the text. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC) p.s. out only External link - IMDb, gives 1hr 32 mins?
Seems that this debate is more a question of content than inclusion.  So fixing the content is the way to handle it.
That's probably the 1974 reissue which had the extra (non-live) material. That's why the time and release date is complicated, as there are two variations bouncing around (three if you include the DVD). Lumpy Gravy is similar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." If you want your information included, I am giving the editors time to improve an article. So far, any editing I've made to make it follow the context of the infobox standard (hey, it's also an infobox that contains information not mentioned in the prose, which is not supposed to be done either) and I've tagged several items that require sources. All have been removed saying "oh its a guideline" or "oh well submit it for a GA Re-review" then. I'll give a day to at least be responded to on a talk page before reverting these edits. If there is no response or any attempt in clearing up the uncited information, I will be submitting the article for a ga re-review. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've got all the books sitting at home, plus the DVD and the original video. I just need to be physically near the sources to do it. Chill out. Also, sources are only required for information challenged or likely to be challenged - nobody's challenged that Roger Waters plays bass guitar in the film or that the band plays "Echoes" in two parts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I would question it. Its not an obvious thing for people totally unfamiliar with the group. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
When you challenge something, it's usually because you think the viewpoint or facts thus presented differ from your own. For example, "Jeremy Corbyn was the most popular candidate in the 2017 election" can be challenged, as this is opinion that not everyone shares. But nobody thinks "Echoes" on Pompeii is split into 3, 4, 8, 42 etc. parts. I think Beyond My Ken said it best here - "Describing what occurs in a media artifact, such as a DVD, VHS, CD, LP or book is not original research, as it involves no more original work that the use of information from a reliable source. It is observation not "original research". There is no more reliable source for the contents of a media artifact than the media artifact itself." And sure enough, if you want to know how many parts "Echoes" is split into, or who plays bass guitar, you watch the movie. It's as simple as that. Now, unlike 5 years ago when I improved this to GA, I normally cite everything for a quiet life, but I do think that that sometimes conflicts with plain old common sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Unchallenged facts, such as Roger Waters being the 'creative genius'  ;)   — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but he did describe Trump as a "nincompoop", while David Gilmour .... didn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah but see listening to someone playing guitar, you can't really tell who it is. Or you could stream the album online and wouldn't be aware for it. Its not so much that it is original research, but its assuming things which have potential to not be truth. Just like when we cite sections of wikipedia for album credits, we still have to state that its from the liner notes of an album. Because hey, your copy of an album may say something different than mine. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight, you think Roger Waters didn't play bass on Live at Pompeii. You'll be telling me next that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and the rest of the Beatles secretly replaced him and left clues on the rest of their recorded output. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not personally doubt that he played bass, and I'm not part of the tin foil hat crowd, so I'm not going to bother answering the other. But these things happen all the time regarding music. For example, two members of the Sex Pistols have stepped forward to say that Sid Vicious had only played bass on a song or two from Nevermind the Bollocks, but the album credits him as playing bass throughout. You do not have to insult me, I am just stating that not just the average, but most people will not know who is playing in an instrument in the band from just listening to the music. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
How ridiculous. You'll be telling us next that John Lydon had a hamster named Sid: [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 
It's a special kind of hamster... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
What a relief. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Right so if anyone wants to talk to my seriously, be my guest. If your more keen on making jokes to amuse only yourselves, go right ahead as I'll be busy adding that you banner tags of unsourced sections. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You'll have a hard time, given there aren't any unsourced sections as I went through and retrospectively sourced everything. This is the problem - you have whined about a lack of sourcing but not lifted a finger to help (and no, minor reverts on the infobox do not count). I have little time for moaners who don't bother to fix articles when other people do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Personally, Andrzejbanas, I had not the slightest intention of excluding you through humour or making you the butt of any jokes. I think your Bollocks mention was anything but, and a very useful example. I hope you will contribute to the article if you can. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
"I have little time for moaners who don't bother to fix articles when other people do.", which is pretty funny as I've contributed to over 20 good articles. I do also do not have the material that you own to fix it. Besides, per WP:BURDEN, "All content must be verifiable. The burden of demonstrating verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". I found a problem I could not fix or did not feel qualified to fix, but thats like saying people who phone plumbers are strictly lazy and should just let a leaky pipe sit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I was going to make a Brexit joke about plumbers in Pompeii, but you talked me out of it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC) 

Can somebody explain what makes the source added in this edit reliable? It seems to contradict several claims I've seen in authoritative sources, including Adrian Maben and Nick Mason, and while I am not exactly awake when it comes to evaluating new sources, this looks to me like a self-published source. It wouldn't be the first time somebody published a book riddled with errors - Cliff Jones' Floyd book was so bad, Gilmour sued him when he refused to withdraw it. Any other thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Clearly self-published (Amazon would provide the publisher otherwise); as to anything else—I believe pushing one's own publication as a source is considered a conflict of interest; if that's the case, perhaps Eightsquared should have that pointed out to them....In any case, the article did not need such drastic changes as they made, and indeed, I agree were not an improvement. Any further such alterations, Eightsquared or anyone else—please make your proposals on this talk page for consideration first, please.  —SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
On edit: See their talk.  —SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, the sources in this article are not that great, but unless Andy Mabbett’s got anything else squirrelled away in the Brain Damage archives, it’s all we have. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Not so poor it failed its GA, at least:)   —SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Some of the claims are possible but unlikely, while some are frankly unbelievable. For example, using an 8-track recorder instead of 16 - well Made In Japan was done on an 8-track about nine months later, but that album was done on a shoestring budget with a total lack of interest from the band, whereas Pompeii was done with the understanding it would use state of the art audio gear. Unfortunately the one guy who would know for sure has been dead for 40 years. As for the film being a huge success in the US  - well when when you had "Squeal like a piggy!", in the cinemas, a cult band - which they were in 1972 - plodding through a live set is not going to be able to compete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I’m kind of new, so apologies if my changes startled some of you. My book is in fact self-published, so thanks for pointing that out. I tried to get it published, but after sitting on it for a couple years, I finally decided to self-publish. Perhaps my changes were deemed drastic, but I just tried to fix the most important details without going too much in depth. The main reason I wrote the book is because there is no one source that gets all the facts right (I know Andy is cited as an expert, but I’ve also shared my findings with Vernon Fitch, who has made significant contributions to documenting the Floyd’s history, and I think he would agree). Most of the original crew, as well as some of the people involved in the film's distribution phase were interviewed, so I was able to glean some new information previously absent from many of the authoritative sources. 8-track was in fact used at Pompeii, only to be bumped up to 16 in post-production, when the band were re-dubbing parts for the film’s soundtrack. This was first pointed out to me by a friend, who thought the tape deck seen in that opening wide shot was too small to be a 16-track. Sure enough, Maben confirmed this after checking his records (meaning to say, he was wrong when he said 16). Although the Japan album was recorded not long after on 16, I don’t doubt that it was possible to record on 16 at the time, but for this film it was probably deemed more practical (certainly for budget) to first do 8 then go up to 16. The film was successful after the Canadian premiere, so George Ritter sold the North American rights to April Fools Films (yes, it was a real company), who made considerably more than Ritter and made quite a bit of press (which I can cite). It is also worth noting that Maben did not receive very much compensation for the film, nor did the band for that matter. There is an anecdote in Nick Mason’s book which corroborates this, Waters having the conceited distributor at a show ejected from the backstage of the venue. And yes, there were other bookers who benefited from the film well after the initial American run. There were also some who timed screenings to coincide with ongoing concerts, so I think that helped to strengthen the film’s cult following one way or another. I am ready to add extra citations for the information which I can definitely prove. Just let me know which changes are of interest. Thanks. Eightsquared (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Probably the simplest thing to do is to cite the original sources you used for the book, if this is practical. If we're talking back issues of Billboard or Melody Maker, then we need the date of issue and the page number, and then it is suitably verifiable (because then anyone with a British Library pass can go and look it up and check it). If it's interviews, that's tricker. Have you asked Brain Damage if they would be interested in publishing any of the new interviews you have undertaken. I think one of the problems you've got is if I do a Google Books search, your book doesn't turn up, and that puzzles me. Why is such a significant book (you're absolutely right that there is no good book source on this, as I complained above) not getting any more attention or critically acclaimed reviews. I realise this is a question of "it's not what you know, it's who you know", but if the book was any good I'm surprised a mainstream publisher didn't pick it up.
Another option (and one several editors practice) is to create your own sandbox in User:Eightsquared/sandbox, put a copy of the article in it, and work on your own version there - then we can review it and pick out the bits that are suitable. The other thing we need to have for book sources is the page number for each citation ({{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} makes this relatively easy) - it's not just practical to search through 200+ pages to find a particular fact.
I do not believe any of Pompeii is dubbed. Sure, parts are edited together, but the actual music is all live and matches the sound on contemporary live recordings (eg: the BBC Paris Theatre, done a week before the film, is musically identical except for a few bits that editing could have resolved). For instance, at the end of "Echoes Part II" you can see Rick Wright get up from the Hammond to go and get ready to play the piano for the outro. In terms of channels, for the drums alone I see a mic for the kick, snare, front toms, rear toms and overheads. That's five channels already - add the guitar, bass, piano, two organs and three vocals and that makes 13 - put a few ambient mics out front and there's your 16. (FWIW I think Made in Japan is kick, snare, toms, overhead, bass, guitar, organ and vocal - all the audience is off "bleed"). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, these corrections (the ones I mentioned in my initial edit description) are the ones I can properly cite:
Release date; “Audience” and “Hollywood Reporter"; image caption for poster; corrected distributor (cited the original one); mention of film’s financial success (replacing previously false statement); mention of North American release and re-arranged info to chronological order.
These I can’t, except with my book:
16 to 8-track in opening paragraph (and subsequent mention); the location utilized for post-production (editing); date of fly-fishing conversation to mid-1972.
Also, just to make sure, I’m adding these changes to the current version of the article, instead of reinstating my original edit as before. Let me know if that works. I never asked Brain Damage about publishing my interviews because the whole point was to keep the information exclusive for my book, but I never found a publisher. Yes, my book does not appear in Google Books because it’s self-published so I didn't acquire an ISBN number. I think part of the reason I didn’t land a publishing deal is because I didn’t have an agent representing me, so that in itself posed a problem. Also, there are not nearly as many publishers interested in "Live At Pompeii" as there are in "Pink Floyd," so the subject is basically a niche within a niche (or at least that’s how Mark Blake described it to me!). You’re definitely right that the band were recorded live, but I still maintain that overdubbing was performed in post; you can even see this in the Director’s Cut, there is B&W footage of David and Rick recording vocals for “Echoes." More of this footage surfaced in later years, and premiered as “Chit Chat With Oysters” in Montreal in 2013 (there's an IMDb page as well). I never encountered any sources that prove the 8- to 16-track transfer in writing, but I have spoken with both of the original sound editors, Paul Bertault (who mixed the original mono in 1972), and Dan Wallin (who did the quad in 1974), and of course Maben himself. Should this last piece of information be omitted, or can I just cite the Director’s Cut DVD? Eightsquared (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Confirming that my edits were submitted. Let me know what you think. Also, I would like to propose omitting Mason’s comment that the film was unsuccessful, as well as the comment that it was overshadowed by "Dark Side" (since both of these contradict the $2 million+ gross). Eightsquared (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I had a quick look, and there doesn't seem to be anything against the GA criteria. I'll leave it for now, and if nobody else has any complaints against it, I would conclude that silence = consensus and it should stand. Thanks for your patience and research. While you're here, you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd, which is a bit moribund at the moment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
That was the last release, wasn't it... Mori / bund.   —SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for confirming. I'll have a look at the page. Eightsquared (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly overdubs in all editions of the film.  For a start on Echoes, at the beginning just after
the drums start, there is Hammond organ while Wright is still playing the piano.  There is bass guitar on
Mademoiselle Nobs while Waters is playing the Strat and Gilmour and Wright are taken up with the harmonica and
dog, respectively.  The original mono mix on the hour-long version has Waters's vocal double tracked on Set The
Controls and again on the mono mix, the vocals on Echoes are a different take, as the phrasing is slightly
different.  There are at least 4 (maybe 5) different audio mixes on different editions of the film and I have
them all.  Incidentally, the article states that some editions have an edited version of Saucerful.  None of the editions I own has. As far as the number of tracks used, I think people may be confusing channels with tracks. You could have any number of channels on the mixer as necessary, submixed to 2, 4, 8 tracks or more on the recorder.  This could easily be done on eight tracks ie drums, bass, keyboards, guitar, vocal 1, vocal 2 and 2 ambient mics.  Certainly, you can see the ambient mics in the opening shot of Echoes.  As Wright is not playing more than one keyboard at any one time, no need for separate tracks.  As Gilmour and Wright are singing simultaneously, they'd warrant separate tracks for the vocals, though they have clearly re-recorded the vocals at some point. 92.25.14.250 (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The article says "Subsequently, Maben was invited with a small crew using a single 35 mm camera to Abbey Road Studios to film supposed [emphasis added] recording sessions of The Dark Side of the Moon, as well as interviews conducted off-camera by Maben, and footage of the band eating and talking at the studio cafeteria."
The footage isn't actually of them in the studio for recording sessions of "Dark Side of the Moon"?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Please could anyone supply information about a second round of screenings, a so-called "double bill", accompanied by a movie of a performance by Yes. I believe that this was circa 74 or so and we went to see it at the Chandos cinema, Buckingham. Thanks.

In his speech thanking Pompeii for his honorary citizenship, Nick Mason thanks a “Mateo Aguto,” represented by his children, for helping set up the original show. Has anyone come across a source for his role? https://www.instagram.com/reel/CvFOPrPIGIp/?igshid=Y2I2MzMwZWM3ZA==
Ulmanor (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)