Talk:Daft Punk

message: Good day fellow Wikipedians and Daft Punk fans, as many of you may or may not be aware of at this current moment in time, official accounts of Daft Punk have very recently posted several images on various social platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. As a fan of the duo and an inexperienced Wikipedian, I come to the talk pages to ask whether this recent event is worthy enough to update the page to reflect the strange occurrence on the first anniversary of their separation. Thank you in advance. KnightCamelot (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem anything worthy to mention for now. For the duo, it might be as simple as sharing their material through the years or maybe leading to Musique Vol. 2? We can't speculate. – The Grid (talk)  21:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  A revision has been made with the summary of "reunion announced". Would it be appropriate to revert the edit in following WP:CRYSTAL? TIA KnightCamelot (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Their reunion is purely speculative. Social media still says (1993-2021) Rpgoof (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...the EDM.com article even says "return to social media". They have made no announcements of reuniting. – The Grid (talk)  14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Grid is correct. Daft Punk is not reuniting and they only returned to release anniversary content. KnightCamelot (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New social posts year after disbandment. 

message: I typed "livestreaming on twitch.tv" because I thought that that could somehow highlight the fact that Daft Punk did in fact reunite on 2nd February 2022, at 2:22 PM PT to stream their old event: the fact that they streamed an old event doesn't cancel the fact that they did so at that precise day and time. On top of that, the VOD (video on demand) is not available on their Twitch.tv channel where it was streamed (it's available on the Internet though, some other user recorded it and uploaded it), perhaps suggesting that it was meant to be a rare/unique event, and the fact that it was livestream was important and worth to type after all...? My two cents. Sorry btw, didn't mean to make a meal out of it. JohnnyCoal (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Livestream vs Stream

message: There's been some disagreement as to whether the spinoff parameter should be used in the infobox. I checked over at Template:Infobox musical artist and it seems that the spinoff parameter has been the subject of some controversy over there as well. I would think that past_member_of would be more appropriate but that seems targeted to solo artists rather than groups. I've posted a new topic on the template's talk page to get more thoughts about the issue. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be "associated acts", which was exponentially more confusing than the parameter that exists now. We replaced it with spinoffs in May 2022. dannymusiceditor  oops  00:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I read the history and the subsequent discussions at the template talk page before posting this here. I've also seen that there still has been consequent confusion and I'm totally OK with raising yet another example on the template talk page if that helps to reduce any future confusion. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I saw this after making the revert. I always saw the usage of spinoff as confusing here. Darlin' was a 6-month group that made 3 songs. It's a minor detail compared to the 30 years of Daft Punk. The description of the band is covered entirely in the prose. It feels like using the spinoff field gives some importance that the band came from another group. This isn't the case, especially when the genres changed from rock to electronic. That would be like saying Skrillex is a spinoff from his previous rock group. – The Grid (talk)  17:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daft Punk as a spinoff group 

message: I'd like to discuss adding the 1995/1996 "unofficial" tour to the Concert tours section. There are found records of a few shows from this tour in the form of photographs and videos, but the sources are not always the most credible. If we decide that its worthwhile to add this tour to the site, should be call out only shows that we have record of? Or maybe it's best to simply state that a tour happened, but the specifics tour dates, venues, loactions, etc are a not well known? Open to thoughts. Joe from Chicago (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct way to handle this is to find third-party sources that documents these shows. We really even shouldn't call it an unofficial tour unless third-party sources state that. I know that these sources exist, because I read them myself in the mid-'90s, but they might require extra effort to track down these days. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1995/1996 Tour 

message: I think the section about what they have done post break up might be something where we should not go into detail if it's only about one member. We have articles for Guy Manual and Thomas Bangalter for that detailed info. I can start to see a coatrack effect happening here and it's going to eventually give undue weight to the band's article as a whole. – The Grid (talk)  15:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post break up information