Talk:Pink Floyd/Archive 3

message: I recently reverted an edit that added Roger Waters as a member of Pink Floyd from 2005-present. I looked up information that supported this and found this. I'm not entirely familiar with Pink Floyd so I'm not sure if this means he is a member of the band once more or whether the new date should be mentioned. I'll leave that to others more familiar with the topic to decide. Cowman109Talk 22:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the way that media outlet (and many others) phrased the Live 8 appearance, it's very clear on the official Pink Floyd and Roger Waters webpages that Roger appeared with Floyd as a guest at Live 8, and did not officially rejoin the band. - dharmabum 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I really think that he should be listed under current members. He has been saying that he wants to tour again as the Floyd but can't because David doesn't want to. If there was a Pink Floyd tour, he would be in it, so how is he not a member? If nobody has any good rebuttles for this I will be adding him back. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 16:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look back through the talk page archives for more details. The only people who can mount a Floyd tour are Gilmour, Wright, and Mason, as they constitute "Pink Floyd" as a legal entity. They could tour without Waters if they wished. Look at the official Floyd websites - it's 100% clear that Waters is not a member. - dharmabum 19:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger Waters 

message: What happened to that great photo with all five Floyd members, including Gilmour and Barrett?
:It was, once again, deleted for obscure copyright concerns. This time, it was because someone asserted it was a non fair-use magazine photo, which it wasn't; it was a promotional photo widely distributed in the 60's which was downloaded from a magazine's site. No matter the source or information provided about any given band photo it always seems to get deleted eventually. - dharmabum 04:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo??? = 

message: Pink Floyd,the name of the band,titles of the songs,names of the albums and band members have been featured in many popular culture media.
MAD magazine:The Super Special Issue #106 part of sub subseries title "Collector's Series No. #11" U.S. edition printed in August 1995 featured the "The Wall" cover of white bricks with black outlines on its "Contents" page.The phrase "All in all ,Its just Another schtick on The Wall"
appeared in bold type in between the list of table of contents.There are many instances where the Pink Floyd have been used as in-joke by the artists and writers of Mad magazine.--asydwaters 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Ref. to Pink Floyd 

message: The section on the Gilmour led band has lots of duplication/repetition.  It needs editing.  -- Beardo 09:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide some specifics? - dharmabum 08:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: He means that he feels that the section on Pink Floyd in the 1985-present has a lot of duplication/repetition. I haven't gone over it in depth in awhile, I'd just like to know what Beardo had a problem with so I could look at the section with some focus. - dharmabum 10:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, I remember Masters of Rock; I got a tape-traded copy in the late 80s, the first time I heard most of the singles. Since it doesn't include any previously-unreleased material it probably doesn't really warrant a mention in the main body of the article, but I'll add it to Pink Floyd discography. - dharmabum 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad; Masters of Rock already appears in Pink Floyd discography. As I said above, the lack of previously-unreleased material doesn't really warrant main-body inclusion, and the brief discography in the article only includes major studio releases, not compilations or live albums. - dharmabum 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize, you are right, it is mentioned in Pink Floyd discography, though I could not see the cover. Actually, it would not be appropriate to put it in the infobox/template of PF albums.--Doktor Who 07:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omissions and Repetition 

message: Is it worthwhile adding information concerning the Publius Enigma phenomenon? See http://folk.uio.no/ericsp/ for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draven5 (talk • contribs) 
:There's already an article covering it, titled Publius Enigma. -- Longhair 10:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publius Enigma 

message: Where is the in-lenght topic that was unusually bright and good on The Album Cover Artworks on Pink Floyd.Earlier it was under the section "Images OF Pink Floyd".?---asydwaters 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album Cover Artworks? 

message: ????????
There's a Pink Floyd trivia article on Wiki, but this looks like an endangered species ... it has a "considered for deletion" tag.Grimhim 05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why did somebody delete the "trivia" section???? 

message: Someone keeps adding a totally irrelevant piece of trivia about a deleted scene of "Hey You" into the article. The trivia is already in Pink Floyd The Wall (film), contains an unneeded critique of the video and audio quality of the deleted scene - not to mention it's a grammatical mess. I don't want to violate WP:3RR and the change keeps coming from different IPs. Am I the only one who thinks the article is already bloated enough without such a minor bit of trivia? - dharmabum 05:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia on "Hey You" in ''The Wall'' (film) 

message: The one that should say "Pink Floyd Perfect Dark is a featured article, which means that it (or a previous version) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." I was wanting to see the nomination page to see if the issue of fair use of all those song samples came up and how it was dealt with.--SeizureDog 19:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone removed it to tidy up the top of the page, since it's clear it was an FA when it's been a main page FA, but hadn't thought that people might want to look back at the nom. I replaced it. - dharmabum 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'm surprised it was the nomination that ended up giving this article so many audio clips. I had assumed that copyright hounds would have been against its use but I was wrong. This is good though, as I have a better understand on how audio clips will be recieved in articles. --SeizureDog 17:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the FA tag? 

message: I've said this in the Dark Side of the Moon article ad I'll say it here. Can we please use Commonwealth (British) spelling in the article? Call me a fuddy duddy, but this is a UK band. Even though I'm British, I'm considerate enough to use American spelling when editing American-centric articles. hedpeguyuk 11:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does use UK spelling (and grammatical rules, such as treating the band name as a plural pronoun), and there's a comment at the top of the article mentioning it, but obviously errors get missed. It just appears you were the first to notice the "-ized"s all through the article. - dharmabum 21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually "ize" is as much an acceptable British spelling as it is American according to my schooling over 30 years ago, which is probably why it has lain "overlooked" for so long.  Cain Mosni 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure one way or another; as a Canadian we have a tendency to use a bit of both. - dharmabum 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't suppose anyone's going to complain.  They're both correct from my UK-centric point of view.  I was just pointing out why it had gone unnoticed.  Hope you're feeling less grumpy today.  Cain Mosni 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Their Myspace page gives their location as "Whittier, California". Did they relocate there? Perhaps there should be a little explanation on their Wikipedia page.  67.166.144.32 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the Dave Gilmour Myspace page (which is operated by Gilmour's label, Columbia), the "pinkfloyd" account is clearly an account created by a fan, probably one that lives in California. It's not a reputable source, and there's no need to mention it in the article. All of the band members live in the UK AFAIK, although all of them (save Syd) lived in continental Europe some time back and may still maintain homes there. - dharmabum 22:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger's main home is in the Hamptons district of New York State, but he does have large houses in Cambridgeshire and London. BotleySmith 01:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I think I heard that David's main home is somewhere in America too and if this is true, like Roger, he most likely has house(s) in the UK aswell. ( Davehard 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last I heard (an interview a few years back), Dave lives on a farm in Sussex. - dharmabum 20:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I heard about that too. ( Davehard 15:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now in California? 

message: This section is exceedingly long, containing endless contradictory statments about Waters and Gilmour's desires to do new Pink Floyd material - all well-referenced, but basically only of interest to the most avid Pink Floyd fans. It's way out of proportion to other sections, and the article could use some cutting. Does anyone have a problem with me condensing it drastically to basically reflect that Floyd will not be producing a new album or tour anytime in the forseeable future, while preserving the various references to interviews over the last several months reflecting their various statements? I'll wait a couple days before making any changes in this direction for feedback. - dharmabum 07:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems reasonable, dear Dharmabul, though I recommend you to avoid drastic cuts, unless such changes have been previoulsy agreed here, in order to prevent edit wars. --Doktor Who 08:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it's not like I want to remove the whole bit, but the constant "Waters said this, then said this" and then "Gilmour said this, but then said this 4 days later" seems too exhaustive for an encyclopedia entry; a summary of the various statements, preserving the links to outside references so people can look for more detail, seems to make more sense and will supply a tighter article. I'm trying to remember that this article should be more geared towards people who have never heard of Floyd and want information rather than people who are hardcore fans looking for precise details. - dharmabum 08:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, but to prevent edit wars, maybe you can post a rewrited version on this talk page to see how people reacts to your changes. Floyd(Norway) 10:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your revised section is much better than the section which is in the article now. Floyd(Norway) 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've actually made a whole bunch more changes, moving large sections to the "1995-present" section if you want to take another look (these sections have been bothering me for awhile and I got on a roll). - dharmabum 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Future directions" section 

message: Who was the bass player/vocalist in this video? --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guy Pratt I think. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most definitely Guy Pratt. - dharmabum 06:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: A Few places "Syd" and "Roger" are, inconsequently, referred to by their first names. Should that not be corrected? To me this style appears to be inappropriate and confusing (since they within the same paragraphs may be referred to by their surnames also).--Jeppebarnwell 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the few instances I could find of the use of "Syd" instead of "Barrett", but I didn't find any uses of "Roger" instead of "Waters" (there's one use of "Roger" in the article without a last name, the phrase that "[Barrett] again [went] by his given name, Roger"). - dharmabum 22:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just searched (Ctrl+F) for "Syd", "Roger", "David", "Nick", "Rick" and "Richard" individually and found no present instances of any of them not followed by a surname, except the one explained above. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 01:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: The "also known as" header, under Background information on the side-bar, contains a lot of old names for Pink Floyd, names they were only known as prior to 1967. It was not until after 1967 that they truly became famous and well-known; the old names serve as nothing more than trivia and could be somewhat misleading to those unfamiliar with Pink Floyd. After all, nobody ever refers to Pink Floyd as "The Abdabs" nowadays. I suggest removal of the "also known as" section. --
:Sounds fine to me - the names can be found further down the article, and the sidebar omits a couple anyway. Keeping "The Pink Floyd Sound" might not be a bad idea, though - they were intermittently referred to as "The Pink Floyd" and "The Pink Floyd Sound" as late as 1968. - dharmabum 01:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that just adding the definite article to the band's name constitutes "also known as", but they are certainly referred to by band members, even into the 21st century, with the definite article. I hope that your uploading and copyright information about that great 5-member photo sticks, as (after a couple different uploads deleted by copyright hounds) it's my favourite and, IMO, best photo to illustrate the whole band. - dharmabum 08:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to remember -- one reason to put alternate names near the top is that there are redirects from many of those names, and someone redirected here ought to be able to see (without scrolling) why they ended up at this article instead!  — Catherine\talk 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, none of the bands mentioned above actually redirect to Pink Floyd, actually, except "The Pink Floyd" and "The Pink Floyd Sound", which hardly need explaining when redirected to "Pink Floyd". Those which are redirects point to Sigma 6, which has its own article discussing its lineup and how it's a precursor to Pink Floyd. - dharmabum 08:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "also known as" 

message: I have an Ambient and Ambient Techno (almost Trance) remix of Echoes (that is simply great, imho), but I havent found yet who made it. I believed, as many did in past years, that the Orb or the Orbital made it, but it has been proved untrue. See also the talk page at the Orb article. Does anyone have any clue ?--Doktor Who 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is the Limited Edition Trance Remix version, I have all of them except The Final Cut.  They are by the The KLF, some members were also involved with The Orb, but the remixes are defiately by The KLF. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you, but the point is that there are a couple of different versions of "Echoes" around, so, Im not really sure if the release you mention is the one I am mad for. --Doktor Who 08:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambient Techno - Trance remixes 

message: Why does Pink Floyd belong in this category? I guess they're talking about Gilmour, but the Final Cut was a Waters solo album. --Macarion 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's Nick Mason. He's the only member of the band who's been with it continually since its beginning in 1965. Gilmour didn't join until 1968 and Wright wasn't a member from 1980-1988. - dharmabum 19:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct; similarly, both King Crimson and Tangerine Dream belong to the same cathegory, but in those cases, the constant member is also the leader and main composer of the band.  --Doktor Who 01:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that's why it seems like Pink Floyd doesn't belong there --Macarion 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many people have been members of Pink Floyd continuously for its entire existence? One. What is the category for? Bands in which exactly one member has been in the band for its entire existence. There are no other issues involved. PurplePlatypus 08:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I previously stated that ... in those cases, the constant member is also the leader and main composer of the band only as a personal comment that might be useful in a further analysis, I don't mean to oppose the inclusion in this interesting cathegory. cheers.--Doktor Who 08:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Bands with only one constant member 

message: Is there a way to remove the citation from the heading "Top 20 singles"? It  looks rather ugly, especially in the TOC (4.2 Top 20 singles[9])... -albrozdude 06:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite in heading 

message: "Barrett died on 7 July 2006, reportedly due to diabetes complications." 
1. The date should be July 7 2006, not 7 July 2006 so it flows with the sentance.
2. is it right to put in an official encyclopedia entry how he "reportedly" died?
i opt for putting "Barrett died on July 7th 2006, at the age of 60" until we are able to put ommit the reportedly
:Pink Floyd is a British band, therefore British spelling should be used as well as British date formats. It was reported that he died from diabetes, so he "reportedly died of diabetes". How should it be put otherwise? "He died"? The reports on how he died is all anyone has to go on. Clq 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, I guess I should revisit pages I've viewed over the last few days that I found improper in regards to geographical spelling differences. Example: For Friends, one of the related pages (either a character or an episode) made mention of "colour" or some other word that either the Brits add a u to or Americans take the u away from. Since friends is a US show, that "u" has to go. Dudewhiterussian 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to date formats, providing the date is Wikified and entered as (for example) 7 July, it will display as either 7 July or July 7, depending on a user's Wiki preferences. Chris 42 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  barrett